Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Cypriot Students

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received concerning the fees to be charged to students from Cyprus who are undergoing courses in the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): A number of representations have been received from hon. Members and from interested bodies seeking concessions on tuition fees for students from Cyprus.

Mr. Race: How many student placings will be funded by the £1 million which I understand has been earmarked by the Government? Is the Minister satisfied that the proposed arrangements will allow as many Cypriot students as want to obtain places in the United Kingdom to be accepted?

Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm that £1 million has been allocated for each of the next three years to increase the number of Cypriot students corning to Great Britain. It is too early to say how many that will support, as the arrangements are still under discussion.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's acceptance of the Overseas Students Trust report has given great pleasure to those who had the privilege of working on the report?

Mr. Waldegrave: I know that my hon. Friend played a significant part in the writing of that report. The Government have made progress on the basis of the report.

Mr. Christopher Price: As Cyprus is an associate member of the European Community, is there any chance of giving Cypriots privileges similar to those that we already give to Guadaloupe, Réunion, Saint Pierre, Miquelon and other French dependencies, which would allow Cypriots to come here at home student fee rates as do students from Greece, which is closely connected with Cyprus, and Hong Kong?

Mr. Waldegrave: Plainly, the assignment of a considerable sum of money to Cyprus will lessen the gap to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Primary Schools (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent in real terms

per pupil in primary schools in England in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figures for 1978–79.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Net institutional recurrent expenditure per full-time equivalent primary pupil in England in 1981–82 was £619 compared with £581 in 1978–79, at 1981–82 outturn prices. The figures show an increase in real terms of approximately 6 per cent. over the three-year period, when pupil numbers fell by some 10 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Do the figures not belie the Opposition's claim that under this Government education standards have fallen?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept that education standards can be judged solely on financial expenditure. I should like to emphasise to the House that the Opposition's claim is completely ill-informed. We now have a record number of teachers in relation to numbers of pupils in our schools.

Mr. Kinnock: Would the Secretary of State say that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's view is entirely ill-informed? If not, will he acknowledge that the HMI said that standards of numeracy, literacy and much else in both primary and secondary schools are threatened by the impact of Government expenditure cuts on maintained schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is common ground that there is considerable scope for improvement in many subjects in many schools. However, I repeat that there are more teachers in relation to the number of pupils than ever before.

School Voucher Scheme

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he or his Department has had with the Sefton metropolitan district council about a proposed school voucher scheme.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now reached a decision on voucher schemes for schools and sixth form colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to introduce further measures to extend parental choice of school.

Sir Keith Joseph: It is known that I am considering a number of possibilities, including vouchers, for extending parental choice and responsibility in school education. As I have said before, I have yet to reach conclusions on this. Informal discussions have been held on my behalf with elected members of a number of authorities about the possibility of pilot voucher schemes. Official consultations would have to await firm proposals.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Secretary of State confirming that he has had informal discussions with Conservative members on Sefton council? is that why they are secretly discussing the possibility of a pilot scheme in Sefton? Will he assure the people of Sefton that there will be no attempt to introduce such a pilot scheme in Sefton before the general election?

Sir keith Joseph: I cannot corroborate or deny discussions with individual authorities— [HON.


MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because they have been informal discussions with elected members on the basis of confidentiality, which I am not free to breach. Nevertheless, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome a pilot scheme to test the validity of such a dramatic innovation in our education system. However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people wish to see a pilot scheme in a London borough as well as in a predominantly rural area and in urban areas outside London?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have taken no decision on this as yet. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind if a decision is made.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the Secretary of State's accountability to the House, why will he not give the names of the local education authorities involved? Secondly, will the scheme that he is now discussing include private schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am not discussing any particular scheme. I am considering a number of options. I am not free to give names, because the discussions into which a representative of mine entered were on a confidential basis. The Government have made no decision yet.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and the Labour party seem to oppose wider choice in education as in many other things. They abolished direct grant schools. The Conservative party favours wider choice, and not just for the well off and/or the clever. If I can find a practicable way to widen choice, I shall certainly propose it to my colleagues.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the arguments for the voucher scheme is the Government's dissatisfaction with state schools? Will he also confirm that he has chosen to have discussions with certain authorities because, in the Government's view, the schools in those areas are the least adequate?

Sir Keith Joseph: I should have thought that it was common ground throughout the House that we want schools to improve their standards. Some have more scope for that than others.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my right hon. Friend even guess why Opposition Members are so worried about the extension of choice if they believe that the present schools are those that any parent with free choice would choose?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that choice, to be effective in a democracy, must extend to everyone and that it must be a real choice not limited by size of purse? Does he recall his own immortal statement that the poor are poor because they do not have enough money? If he proposes, as apparently he has proposed to the so-called family policy group, whose papers I have, to make access to essential facilities more dependent on personal payment, will he not be adding deprivation of freedom to poverty of income, thus tightening the noose of disadvantage as well as destroying liberty? As a self-professed libertarian, how can he possibly defend the commercialisation of education, the expense of a voucher system, the uproar that it would cause and, above all, the disadvantage for those with neither the wish not the means to take advantage of it?

Sir Keith Joseph: The voucher scheme may or may not prove practicable, and it may or may not be proposed by the Government; but the concept is designed to provide those who have not the money to feel able to choose a school for their child with just that facility.

Open University (Degree Course Costs)

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the average cost of obtaining a degree course at the Open University to a student commencing (a) now, (b) in 1979 and (c) in 1975.

Mr. Waldegrave: The cost of taking a single credit Open University degree course, with attendance at a summer school, is estimated to be c286 in 1983. The comparable figures for 1979 and 1975, at 1983 prices, are £268 and £254, respectively.

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister aware that there is substantial hardship among the unemployed who are taking or intending to take Open University degrees? Will he set up a fund for that growing sector of society?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government set up such a fund two years ago, with £500,000, which is being fully used to help to bring the benefits of the Open University to unemployed people.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fund is being well taken up by unemployed people successfully following Open University courses and that the number applying for such courses is holding up extraordinarily well, particularly for the summer schools?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend knows the Open University extremely well, and what he says is correct.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that 46 per cent. of those who were offered places at the Open University but had to turn them down gave the increase in fees as the reason? Is that not an indictment of the Government's policy on Open University fees?

Mr. Waldegrave: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly correct. That is why for the next two years the Government have moderated the increase to keep in line with inflation. Labour Members should tread a little warily here, as the Labour Government were responsible for by far the biggest increase in Open University fees—60 per cent. in one year.

Teacher Education and Training (North-East)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made with his plans to establish a significant centre of teacher education and training in the north-east of England.

Mr. Waldegrave: Before the location of such a centre is decided my right hon. Friend will want to consider the effect of the recent reorganisation of initial teacher training on recruitment to institutions in the north-east.

Mr. Beith: Then what was the meaning of the Secretary of State's announcement in November? Is the Minister aware that as there have been about 10 college closures in the north-east in the past decade, it is hard for people in the region to believe that the Government intend to set up a significant new teacher training centre there? By what date does he intend the project to be carried out?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers is being asked to look again at the supply of teachers next year. That must be the first stage. The time scale must be two or three years. We need to see how demand holds up in the different colleges.
The meaning of my right hon. Friend's announcement was perfectly clear. We were worried that there was not a sufficient teacher training presence in the north-east in the public sector.

Sir William Elliott: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable regret in the north of England about the closure of St. Mary's Roman Catholic teacher training college in Fenham, Newcastle? Is he further aware that the nearest Roman Catholic teacher training college is in Leeds? Will he bear in mind the desirability of the maintenance of teacher training colleges with a religious base?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can, of course, give my hon. Friend the latter assurance. I remind him that St. Mary's, Fenham closed of its own free will before the Government's recent exercise on teacher training.

Religious Education

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the operation of the religious education provisions of the Education Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I have no doubt that we could—and should—provide better religious education for our young people. We have made it clear that we look to local education authorities, governing bodies and schools to live up to their statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Greenway: Although one does not not wish to see rigidity in this area, does my hon. Friend accept the importance of RE teaching? Is he aware that 80 per cent. of parents, whether or not they are churchgoers themselves, want RE teaching for their children, but that in 80 per cent. of schools there is known to be no regular act of worship, as by law there should be, or proper RE teaching? As the law requires that there should be proper RE teaching in all schools, why are we not getting it?

Dr. Boyson: The Government have made clear time and again their belief in the enforcement of the provisions of the 1944 Act about the act of worship once a day and religious education in schools. If this is not taking place, we can deal with the matter only if it is brought to our attention. There have been only four complaints in the past 14 months, all of which we have dealt with.

Mr. Ashton: If there is to be more religious education in schools, what kind of computer will the Minister recommend to show how Tory millionaires in the Cabinet can shove camels through the eye of a needle and get to the kingdom of heaven?

Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is moving into the electronic age, but I am not sure that he can drag his camel with him.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my hon. Friend aware that statistics from his Department show that only 58 per cent. of schools provide religious education for all fourth-year pupils, and 18 per cent. provide it for none at all? Is it not

a scandal that this Government, of all Governments, should preside over what is becoming a collapse of moral and religious education in schools? When will we train more religious education teachers and get them into post?

Dr. Boyson: The figures to which my right hon. Friend referred were based on the 1978 secondary schools survey. The enforcement of the 1944 Act depends upon local education authorities, governors and heads of schools. It also depends on the influence of the churches in certain areas. Last year we increased the percentage of teachers training for religious education, and last October there were about 50 newly trained RE teachers without posts. That shows that there are sufficient RE teachers to fill any vacancies.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is not the Minister's answer incompatible with his Department's decision to cut back teacher training colleges with a religious base more severely than the usual teacher training colleges, and especially the De La Salle college, which is one of the few Roman Catholic colleges in the north-west?

Dr. Boyson: I cannot refer to the De La Salle college, because the matter is sub judice. However, the number of teachers training in secondary school teaching for 1983 will be higher than it has been for many years.

Croxteth Comprehensive School

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present situation in Liverpool's Croxteth comprehensive school.

Dr. Boyson: Croxteth county comprehensive school ceased to exist with effect from September 1982, and ray right hon. Friend has urged the local education authority to bring to an end the unlawful occupation of the premises of the former Croxteth school.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that the occupation by the parents and the action committee, who have been providing classes and meals throughout the winter, has captured the imagination of the people of Liverpool? Is he further aware that they have recently been served with a summons for a rates bill of £27,000?
In view of the Government's belief that parents should provide schools for their children, does the Minister agree that that is exactly what the parents at the Croxteth comprehensive school are doing? Will the Secretary of State visit Croxteth to see at first hand what is taking place so that he can inform his advisers?

Dr. Boyson: It should be made clear that the school was closed, not by my Department, but by the Liverpool education authority with the agreement of my Department. It did so because the school was under-subscribed, with only between 50 and 60 per cent. of the places being filled. Only one pupil from outside the catchment area attended Croxteth school in its last year, while one third of the children inside its catchment area opted out. Therefore, there was nothing to show at that stage that there was any massive support for the school, but we have noticed what has happened since.

Mr. Christopher Price: How can the Minister persuade us or anybody else that he is in favour of parental choice if he uses his powers to prevent parents wishing to keep a school open from doing so? Would Croxteth qualify for a voucher system, if such existed?

Dr. Boyson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes, so he can join the ranks of those who support the voucher system. If only three parents wish their children to attend a certain school, do we keep it open when it should provide 1,500 or 2,000 places? There must be a limit.

Mr. Christopher Price: They could use the vouchers.

Dr. Boyson: Yes, parents could pay the teachers with vouchers. I have already explained that parents opted out of the catchment area for the Croxteth school in favour of the Ellergreen school. They believed that Ellergreen school was more satisfactory because of the facilities that it could provide.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Minister realise that he makes himself look even more incredible than usual by advertising the idea that the Tory party is in favour of choice, while imposing enormous qualifications and restrictions? Have not the parents at Croxteth effectively demonstrated their preference for that school by making enormous sacrifices to provide their children with education at that school?

Dr. Boyson: The Opposition's lackaday belief in parental choice is suspicious. If Croxteth school had been full, and if parents had been queueing for places for their children, the local authority would not have issued a section 12 notice to close the school. The school was not full. It was running down. People did not wish to move within the area; they wished to move out. The local authority suggested the closure and my Department agreed. Another factor is that there is a limit on the number of full courses that a small secondary school can provide. There were only 24 pupils in the sixth form, and three sixth form classes had only one pupil each. Even with their alchemist sense of finance, the Opposition must find that excessive.

Unemployed Teachers

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many unemployed teachers there were 10 years ago, five years ago and last year in (a) primary education, (b) secondary education and (c) further education.

Sir Keith Joseph: In round figures, the numbers of people registered as unemployed and seeking teaching posts in England in September 1973, 1978 and 1982, respectively were 1,000, 4,000 and 9,000 for posts in primary schools; 1,000, 6,000 and 13,000 for posts in secondary schools; and 1,000, 3,000 and 6,000 for posts in higher and further education.

Dr. Miller: Why should there be any unemployed teachers in Britain in an era in which education is, if anything, more important than it has been throughout our history?

Sir Keith Joseph: The teaching force has fallen proportionately far less than the number of children in schools. The more jobs that are not justified in the public sector, the fewer there will be in the private sector. The trading base has been partly wrecked in the past by Government overspending.

Mr. Forman: What efforts are being made by my right hon. Friend's Department to ensure that some of the

13,000 unemployed secondary school teachers receive retraining so that they can teach some of the shortage subjects that are important to the future of Britain and its industrial base—for example, mathematics?

Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot give an immediate answer to that question. Retraining courses are available, and there will be an increasing demand for retraining to meet the expected rise in numbers in primary education.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State has revealed that there are nearly 30,000 unemployed trained teachers in England. What other avenues of employment would he recommend them to seek?

Sir Keith Joseph: There must be an infinite number of answers to that question. The proportion of teachers unemployed is, I fear, far less than the proportion of unemployed people with other skills in the private and public sectors because of the bad state of the economy, due, in part, to excessive Labour Government spending, with its consequences on inflation, interest rates and taxation.

Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new technical education initiative being organised by the Manpower Services Commission additional funds will be available for retraining unemployed teachers? Should not local authorities, therefore, lose no time in making applications for those funds?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is right in general, but I would not wish to encourage too large a hope for additional teaching numbers in the new pilot scheme. Large numbers of local education authorities have already expressed interest.

Mr. Dobson: If the Secretary of State is interested in increasing parental choice and improving education standards, does he agree that one of the quickest ways of doing that is by putting those 30,000 teachers back to work? Does he propose instead to close or permit the closure of even more than the 350 schools whose closure he has allowed in the past three years?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that there are now 1 million fewer children in schools than there were seven years ago. He also ignores the problem of who would pay for the extra teachers in post. Presumably he would be happy to see more firms go bankrupt and more people thrown out of work in the private sector to pay for them.

Continuing Education

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future remit for a national body for continuing education, following the termination of the present council's remit at the end of October.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): My right hon. Friend is reviewing the need for a Government—financed national body for adult and continuing education and hopes to make a statement in the spring.

Mr. Dormand: I welcome the proposals for the establishment of a national body for continuing education, the details of which, I understand, have been sent to the


Department anyway. Does the Minister agree that the most important step that can be taken in this regard is to provide a statutory basis for adult education? When will the Government introduce legislation on that issue?

Mr. Shelton: We are considering the matter raised in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is unlikely that ACACE will continue in its present form. It has accepted that its continuation is not sensible. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, a statement on adult education reform will be made in due course.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that there is a self-evident need for a development, rather than a reduction, of adult and continuing education, bearing in mind changing technology? Does he agree that that requires a national body with development powers and resources of a kind that the existing structure does not have?

Mr. Shelton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach great importance to adult and continuing education. I pray in aid the PICKUP scheme, which is the subject of the next question.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that adult education will never have the status and scope that it ought to have until it has a statutory basis? Will he reconsider what he said earlier?

Mr. Shelton: I have said only that no decision has yet been made. When it is made, it will be announced.

Mr. Whitehead: The Minister has said that he is reviewing the need for such a body. Has not the work of ACACE in the past five years proved the existence of that need beyond any peradventure? Does he agree that it would have been more appropriate today to have paid tribute to the work of that body in the past five years? Even the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), now realises that we need a statutory basis for adult and continuing education. Why cannot the Government say that, in principle, they recognise that?

Mr. Shelton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to express the Government's thanks for the work that ACACE has done. It has worked hard and performed extraordinarily well. We are grateful to it. Nevertheless, it believes that the six years during which it has existed is probably enough to fulfil its present remit. We are considering the remit that it has recommended to US.

Mid-career Education and Training

Mr. Wolfson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he attaches to the provision of mid-career education and training opportunities.

Mr. William Shelton: Our initiative for professional, industrial and commercial updating, known as PICKUP, reflects the considerable importance we attach to the provision of mid-career education and training opportunities.

Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. What discussions has his Department had with other relevant Departments, especially the Departments of Industry, Employment and Health and Social Security, to achieve a co-ordinated strategy for mid-career training?

Mr. Shelton: I assure my hon. Friend that discussions have been continuous and fairly extensive. I can cite as an example the workshops that have been held throughout the country. Eight have already been held and a further seven are planned. They are meant to bring together the various bodies that my hon. Friend mentioned for discussions on how the scheme may best proceed.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware that many people who have taken mid-career educational courses have subsequently found themselves unemployed? In those circumstances, is it not nonsensical for us to talk about mid-career education, when the Government are doing nothing about giving the type of boost to industry that is necessary to give people the opportunity to make use of whatever skills they acquire?

Mr. Shelton: It seems that most of the people who are taking part in the PICKUP scheme are in employment and updating their skills for continuing employment. I accept that there may be some who find that they are unemployed. Nevertheless, in general, the scheme is for people in employment. By and large, the fees are paid for by the company for which those people work.

Mr. Rhodes James: Although a great deal has been done in the past three years, does my hon. Friend agree that present circumstances highlight the weakness of the grant structure, especially for those who have taken a first degree and are not entitled to take a second? Does he agree that that brings the problem of discretionary grants into the discussion?

Mr. Shelton: That is an interesting question, but it is different from the one that we are considering. Should the Government decide to introduce a loan scheme, it would be interesting to see whether that scheme could be extended to cover people in adult and continuing education.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister agree that the PICKUP programme is utterly inadequate in view of the rapidly changing circumstances of automation in industry? Does he agree also that it is time that we took off the shelves the tremendous number of reports in the Minister's Department and tried to achieve a more active programme of work that will meet the changing conditions in which we now live?

Mr. Shelton: The Department has put £2 million towards the programme. That is more than the Labour Government ever did. Indeed, the Labour Government had no scheme of any sort.

Ethnic Minority Children (Swann Committee)

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive a further report from the Swann committee on the education of ethnic minority children.

Sir Keith Joseph: The committee expects to submit its final report later this year.

Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the objective must be to enable the children of racial minorities to get the same benefit from school as the rest of British children? Does he agree that care must be taken not to put them into a special category, which cuts them off from the majority?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree wholeheartedly with both of my hon. Friend's propositions.

Mr. Jim Marshall: While the Secretary of State is waiting for that further report, may I ask what advice he will give to headmasters whose schools have a majority of non-Christian children, about carrying out their legal obligations to provide religious instruction as outlined by the Education Act 1944?

Sir Keith Joseph: Decisions about advice to schools are for local education authorities.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: With regard to the division in the committee as to whether discrimination or disadvantage is the cause of non-achievement among West Indians, does the Secretary of State agree that it would help if he told the committee that it ought to address its mind to both subjects, as both are relevant to underachievement?

Sir Keith Joseph: I fear that I did not hear the first word of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall draw the attention of Lord Swann to the hon. Gentleman's question so that he can see what he has said.

University Expenditure

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss priorities for university expenditure.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to meet the University Grants Committee, but my right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with the committee's chairman.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister next meets the University Grants Committee, will he tell it to reverse the savage cuts it has imposed on universities such as Bradford, Aston and Salford, so as to give young people a wider opportunity of choice, and so that the many thousands of young people who have been denied the opportunity of a university education can have that chance? Does he agree that it is significant that the only college to obtain university status is the private, Right-wing extremist college which is now the University of Buckingham? Does he further agree that that shows that the Government are pursuing their policy of private affluence and public squalor in the university sector?

Mr. Waldegrave: The absurdity of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition is covered by privilege. I do not think that he would want to say it outside the House. It was a foolish remark. With regard to the first part of his question, we have often debated the reshaping of the university system.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: When he next meets the University Grants Committee, will the Minister bring to its attention the fact that, despite its priorities for engineering and industry, the largest increase in the most recent applications is of students who wish to study classics? Is he aware that the number has increased by 12 per cent.? Does he further agree that that is utterly ridiculous and that it is time other priorities were established and enforced?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is deceived by an increase in a small base number. The overall increase in science and technology by the end of the period will be much larger in absolute numbers.

Catering Advisers

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many catering advisers his Department employs; and at what cost to public funds.

Sir Keith Joseph: Two, at a total salary cost of £30,904.

Mr. Haselhurst: Why does my right hon. Friend need this advice? Cannot the task of deciding what is fit for children to eat in schools safely be left to local education authorities?

Sir Keith Joseph: I need this advice to enable me to persuade more education authorities to copy the example of the substantial minority that are still providing an excellent choice for children who want school meals at much less cost.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that his advisers, however inadequate, are proving much more successful than those who advise the Prime Minister?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I can safely say that that is rubbish. My Department employed 10 catering advisers, but now, because of the effective economies of many local education authorities, it needs only two.

Research Fellowships

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the new research fellowships in science and technology he announced in December are going to universities and to research councils, respectively.

Mr. Waldegrave: The 45 additional research fellowships in information technology subjects will be funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council and located in institutions of higher education. The 200 new lecturer appointments in the natural sciences, and the 70 such appointments in information technology subjects, will be funded by the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern in the west midlands that the technical research places lost at Midland universities, especially at Aston, should now be replaced under the scheme in view of the importance of higher technology to the industries of the region and in accordance with what we understood to be Government policy, which included the funding of a science park?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have met all the recommendations of the Alvey committee on information technology on the provision of extra students and teachers. It is open to Aston university to bid for some of these places.

Peace Studies and Defence

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidance to local education authorities as to appropriate teaching material relating to peace studies and defence.

Dr. Boyson: It is for schools themselves to decide exactly what they will teach, but what is offered should always be education and not indoctrination. Care should be taken not to overload the curriculum.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that one-sided propaganda for one-sided disarmament is circulating in our schools? Will he ascertain to what extent local education authorities and head teachers are making use of the excellent material that is provided by Government Departments giving a balanced view of this great issue, so that it may be sensibly covered?

Dr. Boyson: If my hon. Friend has evidence of one-sided propaganda going into schools we shall be glad to receive it, as we receive material from others. The Foreign Office has material available and it sends it to schools that wish to receive it. We have made that public property.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is right and that one-sided material from the Ministry of Defence is pouring into our schools, which has not been asked for by the schools? As previous Governments have taken action to prevent unsolicited mail arriving at private houses, will the hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence with a view to stopping this unsolicited flow of one-sided material into the schools?

Dr. Boyson: I am informed that material from the Ministry of Defence goes out only to schools that request it. Material from the Foreign Office—it was sent out originally at the suggestion of the National Union of Teachers—was distributed widely. As I have said, material from the MOD is sent only at the request of the schools. It is for the heads and staff of the schools to decide what use is made of whatever material appears in the schools.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the teaching at schools is bound to be history? Does he accept that the 37 years of peace in Europe, which have been secured by successive Governments following the same policies, form part of the overall issue of peace and defence?

Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which peace is kept and freedom is maintained is part of history and teaching thereof. The fact that peace has been kept ever since the second world war through the strength of the West is something that should be covered in history.

Mr. Kinnock: In the interests of balance, will the Minister draw to the attention of schools the fact that we live in a country in which the Government increased their defence expenditure by 10·9 per cent. in the current year while cutting education expenditure in real terms by 0·5 per cent?

Dr. Boyson: It might be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to note that we have 1 million fewer children in our schools than seven years ago. There is no doubt that the mass of the British people are delighted that we are able to defend ourselves against any external threat.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Further Education Pupils (Financial Assistance)

Ql. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase financial assistance to pupils remaining at school after they are 16 years old.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Magaret Thatcher): We have no such plans at present.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate all state schools on the excellent job that they do and dissuade her ministerial colleagues from continuing to attack them with policies such as the voucher scheme? Will she persuade her Ministers to put all their energies into extending opportunities of choice for 16-year-olds who would like to stay on in sixth forms but who do not have the financial means to do so?

The Prime Minister: I am always congratulating those who are doing an excellent job and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. As to the Child Poverty Action Group, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring, its scheme would cost £500 million a year. Most of that would be spent on those who would stay on in education anyway. There has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of 16-year-olds who are staying on in education, which is very good news.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend consider examining whether the pattern of financial assistance for those of school-leaving age and above is what she believes to be rational? Will she come forward with Proposals —preferably after she has had success at the next election—for a more rational scheme than the present one?

The Prime Minister: We have considered the scheme and the varying grants that are available across the board. It is not easy to make changes without introducing more anomalies. That is the problem.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Prime Minister consider the fact that, in this year of grace, we are spending more on locking up young people than on providing for their further training and employment?

The Prime Minister: We are spending a large amount on providng for their further training and employment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a new scheme will be introduced in September, which will cost about £2 billion, for training young people. We would hope that by the age of 16 young people will either stay on in education, have a job, or have some training, so that unemployment is not an option.

Mr. Fry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it pays some 16-year-olds who have left school, and for whom places are available at work centres, to stay at home because the cost of transport to the centres has to be taken from their supplementary benefit payments? Will she ask her right hon. Friends to consider removing this disincentive so that more of our 16-year-olds may spend their time on worthwhile employment rather than sit at home doing nothing?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I shall do that, but I believe that special travelling allowances are provided for journeys to some skill centres.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to confirm to us that it is a £2 billion scheme? We are gratified to learn that she is moving in the direction that we have been advocating. I hope that she will confirm the figure here and now. We shall certainly welcome it and show our usual generosity in doing so.

The Prime Minister: The amount has not been increased. The scheme will cost a great deal over a long period.

Engagements

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of countries are deserting monetarist policies? Will she accept that she, too, has a splendid opportunity to respond in that way by accepting the recommendations of the second report of the Brandt commission? Will she, therefore, offer hope to 4 million unemployed in this country and those in the developing world, who are suffering from starvation?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has looked at the many communiqués from the economic summits, their top priority is to keep inflation down and to try to get interest rates down as a means of increasing employment in all our countries as well as making us competitive in goods that we send to the developing countries. He will also know that the London Business School's recent studies concluded that reflation is little help on jobs and that it could result in putting up the numbers of people out of work as well as vastly putting up the level of inflation.

Sir Timothy Kitson: During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend send a sharp note to those responsible for buying the food for the British forces in the Falklands and tell them that we have a "Buy British" campaign? Is she aware that when the Select Committee on Defence was in the Falklands last week it was surprised to find that the apples were from France, the bacon from Denmark, the pork from eastern Europe—

Mr. Canavan: The corned beef from Argentina.

Sir Timothy Kitson: —the beef from Uruguay and the tinned beef from the Argentine? We found some cabbages from Lincolnshire, but surely Britain can do better than that?

The Prime Minister: Having helped to launch the Food from Britain campaign, I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend's strictures are brought to the attention of the appropriate people and hope that British food firms will be urged to put in competitive tenders to feed British soldiers.

Mr. David Steel: May I return to the question that I asked the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, now that she has the facts of the case? Does she intend to intervene with the Allied Corporation of New Jersey to stop the transfer of a profitable subsidiary company in high technology from this country to Germany, with the loss of 500 jobs?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman means the Linotype company in Cheltenham—

Mr. Steel: indicated assent

The Prime Minister: He did not, in fact, mention it. I understand that no financial inducements were offered by the state of Hessen, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably have heard at lunchtime, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is meeting the management of this company to see whether anything can be done. I should also point out that we do have a great deal of inward investment. Indeed, last year inward investment provided some 10,000 jobs.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 22 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the information given in parliamentary answers shows that most people, particularly those on the smallest incomes, are paying considerably more in income tax and national insurance than in 1978–79, while the most wealthy are paying substantially less? Does the right hon. Lady believe that a few pre-election tax bribes in the Budget will help to disguise the fact that her Government have been dedicated to helping the rich at the expense of the rest of the community?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is correct on one thing. We certainly did reduce the level of tax on top earnings to 60 per cent. It was an overdue reform, as we depend so greatly on management if we are to be competitive in future. With regard to the level of income tax and national insurance, the Labour party is always urging me to spend more or to increase pensions, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. By how much would the hon. Gentleman increase taxation? By how much would he increase national insurance, or, alternatively, by how much would he reduce public expenditure?

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to see reports in the paper to the effect that the Labour group on the GLC is apparently proposing to give a grant of £50,000 to the "Troops Out" movement? Will she take this opportunity to condemn it, not only as an abuse of the spending of ratepayers' money, but as an affront to the whole of our nation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I wholly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this is an abuse of ratepayers' money. I believe that it is an insult to our security forces, the army and the police, whose job it is to protect the weak and the innocent—a task which they are carrying out magnificently.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to recent Government publications, living standards under her Government have fallen by no less than 8 per cent. since the fourth quarter of 1979? Is she also aware that, contrary to all her election promises, the tax burden on the average family has increased under her Government by no less than 15 per cent.? Does this not suggest that her Government have not only been a catastrophe for the unemployed but pretty much a disaster for those still in work?

The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman is always careful to take the last quarter of the Labour Government. If he considers real personal disposable income, he will find that it dropped substantially in 1975, in 1976 and in 1977 and that for the greater part of our time—

Mr. William Hamilton: Wriggle, wriggle.

The Prime Minister: —it has been well above what it was during the lifetime of the Labour Government. With regard to taxation, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me a list of the expenditure that he would reduce.

Mr. Skinner: Not doing very well today.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of the other parties in the House has any policy for the developing technologies, which are providing new jobs and will continue to do so? Knowing, as I do, my right hon. Friend's commitment to these developments, does she think that even the fourfold increase that her Government have given to these developments—as compared with that of the Labour Government—is enough?

The Prime Minister: We have increased expenditure under the Science and Technology Act 1965 in real terms by 50 per cent. In specific areas, such as information technology—we have to be specific on this, because general increases in Government expenditure will not necessarily help—we have increased it from £50 million in 1979 to a target of £200 million in 1983.

Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Lady is so eager to clear up these questions of taxation and her own promises in the matter, may I ask how much a person has to earn per week to get tax relief under her Government, and how that compare, with the pledges that she made at the last election?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has concentratedare on increases in taxation. Yes, there have been increases in taxation for many people. It is absolutely essential. If one is to have public expenditure, one must cover it largely by taxation. I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman, again and again, if he wants taxation to come down, as I do, to say precisely where he will cut public expenditure. Will it be only in defence?

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady point to one occasion on which she told the country what the tax reliefs were to be and when she said that the tax reliefs would be confined only to the top people in the country?

The Prime Minister: That is not so. The standard rate of income tax was 33p in the pound—it is now 30p.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that the police support unit of the Greater London council is recommending a grant of £50,000 to the "Troops Out" movement? Will she, in an effort to improve Anglo-Irish relations, confirm that her Government have no intention of amending the Ireland Act 1949 to disfranchise Irish citizens resident in Britain?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady asked two questions. I understand that the GLC police committee will today consider the grant. As to her second question, I have no announcement of any sort to make.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Report)

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Association for Patients and Staff that alleges injustice and brutality in some hospitals for mentally handicapped people.
The matter is specific because it deals with the treatment of mentally handicapped patients in long-stay hospitals, and the lack of effective procedures to protect those vulnerable people who cannot complain themselves. The matter is important because the report makes serious allegations of cruelty, brutality and even barbarity in some of our hospitals. That includes physical and sexual assaults, beatings, isolation, pulling a woman by her pubic hair, tying children to chairs, keeping patients on the toilet all day and the excessive use of drugs for the severely handicapped.
The matter is urgent because, if those grave allegations are substantiated, we are dealing with a major public scandal that involves cruelty to helpless people. It would be a grave reflection on the House if we failed to take immediate steps to deal with such cruelty and to establish effective procedures.
The report has been criticised by one trade union leader. He is entitled to his opinion, but so is the House. This is a controversial, important and urgent issue. I hope that you will rule, Mr. Speaker, that we should debate it as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Association for Patients and Staff that alleges injustice and brutality in some hospitals for mentally handicapped people.
The right hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention a very serious matter. The House will have listened with anxious concern to what he said. He is aware that this is not the only way in which the matter could be discussed and that I have limited power in this regard.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I must rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Housing

Mr. Joseph Dean: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for people living in industrialised and semi-industrialised built housing.
My purpose in introducing the Bill is to try to give justice to a section of the community who, through no fault of theirs, are in difficulty because of the accommodation they occupy and the financial burden that it imposes upon them. I am, of course, referring to those described in the Bill who live in industrialised and semi-industrialised built accommodation.
Some examples will show the size and nature of the problem. Day by day, week by week, increasing evidence emerges that this policy has been an almost total failure. Huge sums of money are needed to correct it. It is grossly unfair to expect council house tenants in general to meet that expense by suffering substantial rent increases over long periods. Of the total of about 5£5 million units of public sector accommodation, almost 1 million have been built by industrialised or semi-industrialised systems. How did that happen? To increase public sector housing production, successive Governments promoted, approved and tailored the subsidy system to encourage local authorities to adopt systems that have proved to be disastrous.
One example is the Hunslet Grange development, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), which was built 14 years ago at a cost of about £5 million. Remedial costs of £1·5 million during those 14 years bring the total cost to more than £6 million. The decision has now been taken to demolish the property because it is no longer lettable and is structurally dangerous. That leaves an outstanding loan of £4·76 million or, in replacement terms, £863,000 a year from the Leeds city council housing revenue account. That means a 22p a week increase on every council house rent in Leeds for the next 40 years. Those figures do not take into account repayment costs.
Almost every other local authority with a large housing stock has inherited similar problems, including Hull, Sheffield and Manchester, which, in using the Bison and Camus systems, have a problem at least two and a half times greater than that of Leeds.
I warned the Minister in an Adjournment debate in June last year that the problems in the properties that I have mentioned, which are all deck access flats, were but the tip of an iceberg that was surfacing quickly, and that the low-rise system-built dwellings would follow sooner or later. A conservative estimate of the money required to deal with the problem is a minimum of £3,000 million. I have mentioned that figure at least twice in the Chamber. The Minister has chosen not to say whether it is wrong, but it is significant that he has not pointed an arrow in its direction.
The low-rise type industrialised and semi-industrialised systems are now deteriorating as fast as the others. The Minister has taken action to deal with the problems of those who have bought council-owned Airey houses. I do not know why the Minister has been so selective in deciding that only those who have bought Airey houses from local authorities shall receive assistance for remedial treatment. However, another group that must be charged


for its culpability in foisting this disaster on the nation during the past 15 to 20 years are the builders who sponsored, designed and orchestrated the sale of those houses to local authorities.
It is an absolute obscenity that council tenants who have no say in the type of accommodation that is built, and young couples who are not yet in council houses but who in future may be council house tenants, will be called on, unless action is taken, to finance the removal and replacement of these monstrosities, which were not the result of their actions. In the Bill I hope to relate some of the responsibilities to the private sector which, as I said, built, sponsored and promoted the systems.
I realise that it is out of order for me to ask for Government finance in a ten-minute Bill, but this is a national problem. It could be said that, since 1 million units will eventually have to be disgorged from our housing system, the slum clearance programme over the past 20 years has been an abject failure. In some respects, it can be said that the cure has almost killed the patient.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph Dean, supported by Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Arthur Palmer and Mr. Frank Allaun.

HOUSING

Mr. Joseph Dean accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for people living in industrialised and semi-industrialised built houses: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

OPPOSITION DAY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Unemployment (West Midlands)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first hon. Member to speak to the first motion, may I say that there is a great deal of difficulty? Every hon. Member for a constituency both in the west midlands and in Yorkshire and Humberside is hoping to catch my eye, and the number of hon. Members who will catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair depends on the length of other hon. Members' speeches. I earnestly hope that that will be borne in mind in the first debate, and particularly in the second debate, where far more constituencies are involved.

Mr. George Park: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the policies of the present Government which have led to the near collapse of the West Midlands economy, have brought about the fastest growing unemployment in mainland Britain, have led to a continuing shrinkage in the foundry, manufacturing, machine tools, engineering and car components industries; deplores the transformation of the Region from a leader in industry to a leader in unemployment and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to reverse the Region's structural industrial decline.
My hon. Friends and. I appreciate this further opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Government the serious situation in the west midlands region. However, we earnestly hope that on this occasion the Minister who replies for the Government will make some attempt to answer the points raised in the debate, and that he will not merely indulge in a tirade against trade unionists that bears no relation to the facts.
Since our previous debate on 7 February, there has been partial recognition of our plight in the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to accord programme authority status to Coventry, Walsall and Sandwell. Unfortunately, that will not, as the right hon. Gentleman at first thought, give access to the European regional development fund, and it is now clear from his letter to me that only those in assisted areas are eligible to apply to that fund.
It is true that the Government are trying to extend the scope of the regional development fund to take in inner city designated areas, but we all know how protracted discussions with the Commission can be, and the 'west midlands may be beyond help before those negotiations come to a conclusion. Objections that have been heard to assisted area status are largely based on the belief that financial aid should be given on a sectoral or industrial basis, not on a geographical basis. That idea is worth consideration.
Conservative Members may say that this motion will serve only to "talk down" the region, but, before they do so, I ask them to consider the fact that there are now 367,343 registered unemployed in the region and we all know that that is not the true total. There are 19,000 people on short-time working—they are on the edge of the precipice—and 49 people are chasing every vacancy in the west midlands. A recent survey showed that 23 per cent. of employers in the west midlands expect to reduce their labour force again in the near future.

Mr. David Winnick: Did my hon. Friend see a recent press report in the Express and Star two weeks ago, pointing out that there was one vacancy in an engineering factory at Tamworth, and that 600 people turned up for that one job?

Mr. Park: Yes, my attention was drawn to that press report. It demonstrates the serious endeavours of people in the west midlands to find work, no matter how remote the possibility.
In all the redundancies that have been declared, no sector of the population has escaped. Professional, managerial, clerical, skilled, and semi-skilled people have all been affected by the redundancies. Only a minute proportion of school leavers can hope to gain a place in the sharply reduced totals of apprenticeships. The majority of the job losses have been in manufacturing, where one in four of the jobs that existed when the Government came to power have gone. There are 300,000 people in the west midlands conurbation who now claim supplementary benefit, and that puts them on or below the poverty line.
Prospects for future employment are not made any brighter by the policies adopted by some large companies. For example, Lucas, Dunlop and GKN are investing heavily abroad, helped by the removal of exchange controls. British Leyland is now purchasing components abroad. That may be understandable in a strict commercial context, but in view of the amount of taxpayers' money that has gone into BL, one would have thought that when home suppliers cannot match the competition, the Government would insist on knowing the reasons, and if, for instance, it was a question of investment in new tools and equipment, that they would have done something about it.
A Minister in the Department of Industry is reported as saying that British Telecom may buy digital exchanges from abroad. If it does that, it will mean further massive redundancies in the GEC factories in Coventry. For the Government to stand back and allow jobs to go abroad without lifting a finger, as part of the dogma of free trade competition, is a dereliction of duty.
Of course, this arm's-length relationship is typical. The Government are content to rely on what are euphemistically called gentlemen's agreements, particularly for the motor industry and machine tools. The people involved in reaching those agreements are themselves importers. The retiring president of the Machine Tool Trades Association, Mr. Gailey, told its annual meeting:
We hope to see enough moderation of the rate of imports in 1983 to allow the survival of a vital sector of a strategic industry in this country, but not so much as would seriously endanger our importing members".
He went on to say that new orders in 1982 were only 35 per cent. of the 1979 level and that there had been closures and redundancies every week in the machine tool industry, with the inevitable consequence that the skill and ability to make machine tools are dissipated.
That trend is highlighted by the decision of the John Brown group in Coventry to suspend its development work on two new machines and instead to assemble an American machine. The development of a new machine for Webster and Bennett Ltd.—part of the same group—has been held up, which means that the John Brown group will not be exhibiting at the European trade fair in June because it has nothing new to offer. In those circumstances, buying British, or even thinking British, has a hollow ring about it.
The Department of Trade says that, because of the general agreement on tariffs and trade we cannot unilaterally determine the imports of motor vehicles into Britain. But other countries which are signatories to GATT do not seem to suffer from that disability. We also see that British Leyland is poised to strike a new deal with Honda for a replacement of the Rover car, but I do not suppose for a moment that the Government will do anything about insisting on a high domestic content of components if that deal is struck.
Hon. Members keep asking about the Nissan project. To my mind that is like inviting a fox into a hen coop. If the Government are prepared to provide attractive incentives to the Japanese to locate their industries in Britain in direct competition with our companies, why do not they provide similar incentives for British industry? Are the Government prepared to do anything specific—even unilaterally—about the disparity in import and export tariffs? What action has been taken about the counterfeiting of components which undercut our home products? Are the Government to continue playing cricket while others practise karate? If these practices continue it is obvious that even the most strenuous efforts by British companies to improve their competitiveness will be negated.
The CBI agrees that the Government can play a crucial supportive role in the recovery of the national economy, including that of the west midlands, by shifting resources into the region through capital investment programmes and local authorities. It has submitted to the Chancellor for his Budget consideration specific suggestions such as the boosting of capital investment on viable projects such as roads, sewers and communications; the abolition of the national insurance surcharge; the reduction of transport and energy costs; the re-introduction of an improved version of the small engineering firms' investment scheme; and support for research and development. Any or all of those suggestions would benefit the west midlands. To that list I would add only one other—the removal of the additional car tax.
The motion before the House refers to a structural decline because some industries such as steel have disappeared from the region and the foundry industry is to be severely cut back by a haphazard scheme devised by Lazards with the object of destroying firms irrespective of their efficiency. Those basic industries which do survive will not in future be able to offer the same number of jobs, if only through the advance of technology. The west midlands is more dependent on manufacturing industry than any other region. Over 40 per cent. of its labour force is employed in that sector, compared with the national average of 28 per cent. At present there is serious and widespread spare capacity in most of the region's manufacturing industries, so any upturn would have little effect on unemployment.
An alternative is the creation of jobs in industries and services which are currently under developed, the nurturing of new ideas sparked off in the science parks and elsewhere, and the kind of support for new ideas which seems to be more readily available abroad than in Britain. The development of small firms can help but it will not deal with the hundreds of thousands at present unemployed. The region's infrastructure stands in need of renewal and development—the completion of the motorway network south of Birmingham and the improvement of roads in the black country, and the


railway system. In a previous debate I also mentioned the clearance and redevelopment of derelict industrial land and buildings. All that requires positive thinking from the Government and a move away from the discipline of the dole queue.
The Labour party cannot accept that high unemployment is inevitable and that we must learn to live with it. The problem is now so massive that it cannot be contained by special programmes aimed at various age groups, which too often undermine wage levels and working conditions. The play of the market has been shown to be completely destructive in human terms. The Government must abandon their arm's-length approach and become actively involved in the problems of industry. In the debate on 7 February some Conservative Members professed sympathy and support for the case put forward by my hon. Friends and myself. If they are not to be accused of shedding crocodile tears, they should carry that support into the Lobby tonight and vote for the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) has asked me to explain to the House that he would very much like to be present today, but he cannot be here because he has other responsibilities on the Standing Committee considering the British Telecommunications Bill. Indeed, I understand that he is probably dealing with amendments upstairs at the moment.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) will realise that, in the interests of brevity, I cannot cover all the points that he raised, but I shall endeavour to deal with some of them.
I should like to deal immediately with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the designation of inner urban areas in Coventry and access to European Community aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not mislead the House. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that designation would provide an opportunity for access to European Community funds. That is precisely what it will provide—an opportunity. However, as my right hon. Friend has already explained in more detail to the hon. Gentleman, we are seeking to establish that inner city areas, like assisted areas, are eligible for both the European regional development and social fund facilities, and the newly designated inner city districts will join in that.
We are seeking to achieve precisely what the hon. Gentleman asks for and, as he knows from the letter that he has received from my right hon. Friend, officials from the Department of the Environment are preparing to put Coventry's case before the Commission. I want to put that on the record. As I am endeavouring to be brief, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not pursue the matter further.

Mr. Park: I do not want any more misinterpretations. The letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Industry states clearly that, currently, only those in assisted areas are eligible. There cannot be any misinterpretation about that.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government are endeavouring to extend that to the other inner urban areas. That is what we are trying to achieve for Coventry and all the other areas.
I fully recognise the anxieties of all hon. Members—anxieties which the Government wholly share—about the real problems in the west midlands, which have created rising unemployment and serious difficulties for many industries. It is obviously distressing, both from the national and the local point of view, that a region that once led the world in having the most modern and prominent industries of the day should now find itself overtaken so dramatically by overseas competition in those very industries, and also find that it does not have as wide a base in the new industries of the future as it had in the car and engineering industries—the metal-bashing industries as they are known—in the past.
Because I wish to be brief, I shall make only two other points about the background and the problems that we have previously debated. First, it is ludicrous to suggest that the situation has arisen only in the past three or four years. I have seen references to reports written 20 years ago drawing attention to the dangers ahead. The more fair minded of Opposition Members have conceded that this situation has been creeping up on the west midlands for two decades or more.

Mr. Denis Howell: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said at the last election.

Mr. MacGregor: Had the tasks of dealing with the car industry's—

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman can deal with those points when he speaks in the debate. He is simply leaving other hon. Members out of the debate. I shall not give way.
Had the tasks of dealing with the car industry's poor productivity record, the damaging number of days lost through strikes, the overmanning, the lack of sufficient new models to beat the competition and meet consumer preferences here and abroad and the problem of component supply, too often of insufficiently good qualify or competitive price, been tackled earlier with the vigour with which they have been tackled over the past three or four years, the state of the west midlands today would be very different. Significant improvements have been made in recent years. The number of man hours lost at BL as a percentage of total work time was as high as 5·9 per cent. in 1977, during the period of the previous Government, and fell to 0·5 per cent. last year. Wage settlements have become more realistic. That is the legacy that the Government are tackling.
Secondly, I repeat what I said in the earlier west midlands debate, in which I took part, in December 1981, that it would be an uphill climb for the west midlands to reach its former level of relative prosperity. I note that in the recent debate on 7 February of this year the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) repeated that comment. I make no apology for it. Given the speed of change today, the intensity of world competition, and the background of over-dependence on what were becoming three increasingly uncompetitive industries which have often been described in the House, it is bound to take time to achieve the recovery of the west midlands and the car industry—only now are the new models coming on stream—and the reconstruction of the industrial base of the region.
I have just come from a Financial Times conference on automated manufacturing, at which I have been speaking.


A senior American industrialist spoke there of the—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter, but is vital to the future of our industry. That industrialist spoke of the
serious challenge to the United States manufacturing capability and productivity in the face of intense world business competition … America's manufacturing effectiveness must be renewed and the factory of the future is the key to this renewal.
That is as true of our industries, and, alas, in robotics we are engaging in the race much further behind our competitors than we should have been.
At that same conference there was much talk of the lack of worldwide demand. The markets have diminished—that is now the major factor—while other things over which we have more control in this country are coming right. As the hon. Gentleman will know from talking to exporting industries in the west midlands, that is one of the key difficulties that faces many of our exporting industries. That is the background, and to get anywhere near the right prescriptions for the future we have to face it.
I want to devote the main part of my speech today to outlining the ingredients of the strategy which the Government are pursuing, and I take first regional policy. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has made it clear on many occasions, following the review of assisted areas last summer, that, in the interests of stability and continuity for industry, we intend to make no further changes in regional policy and assisted area status except in the most exceptional circumstances during the lifetime of this Parliament. And in looking at these matters, unemployment is only one of the factors that is taken into account. We must look far wider at the "other circumstances" to which the Industrial Development Act 1982 refers. The heart of the west midlands is of course in national terms superbly located with ample road and rail communications—I know some of my hon. Friends want some aspects improved—and that great national advantage remains—something which the traditional assisted areas do not share. It is an advantage that will weigh heavily with potential investors. A further part of the region's industrial legacy which must count in its favour is its reservoir of industrial talent and skills. That reservoir will form a tremendous asset as the world recession clears and the economy starts to expand again.
The House also knows that officials of the Departments concerned have completed the first stage of a review examining the working of current regional economic policies and identifying ways in which they might be made more effective. This is a long-term task, and I know that all the Opposition parties are similarly engaged on such a review. Ministers are considering this first stage. We now have to decide what further work, if any, we want to commission in preparation for any possible policy changes. But I repeat that no further substantial change in regional policy or to the assisted area map is envisaged in the lifetime of this Parliament.
I know, too, that while, naturally, some voices have been raised in favour of considering the possibility of assisted area status for the west midlands within the region itself, there are very strongly divided views, both in the chambers of commerce and in the CBI, among industrialists and, indeed, as was clear from our recent debate on the Consolidated Fund, here in the House, on

both sides as well. I have listened to many people discussing this issue. I have no doubt that that debate will continue and we will listen carefully to the views.
I stress again that under this Government a number of the relative disadvantages, as they are seen from the west midlands, of regional policy have been lifted from west midlands' shoulders. The reduction in assisted area status from 44 per cent. of the working population to 27 per cent. is one of them. There are many fewer parts of the country, which did not need that relative incentive advantage over the west midlands, which now have it. The suspension of IDCs has removed an obstacle to the expansion of new and existing industries within the west midlands which, I accept and had long thought, was one of the reasons why the west midlands was not able to build up a more widely based and different industrial structure over the last 20 years.
There is one further point that I should like to make. Those who call for assisted area status, from other parts of the country as well as the west midlands, frequently do so on the ground that this will make them eligible for various European schemes. I draw to the attention of all small and medium-sized businesses in the west midlands the fact that only last month I was able to announce a new European scheme for which for the first time all qualifying firms in the non-assisted areas will be eligible. The west midlands benefits from the new loans under the new Community instrument from the European Investment Bank, which are available to firms with fewer than 500 employees through ICFC to cover up to 50 per cent. of the fixed asset costs of projects in manufacturing industry, mining and extraction, tourism and industry related services outside the assisted areas.
We believe that that money will bring forward projects which would not otherwise have taken place because of the relative advantage the scheme offers in borrowing costs. Although the cost may vary from time to time depending on interest rate levels in the Community and other countries, loans under the scheme are currently being lent by ICFC at the attractive rate of 11½ per cent. for an eight-year term. The Government are playing an important role by providing the necessary exchange risk cover to protect the borrower against adverse exchange rate movements.
I am pleased to say that there has been strong interest in the west midlands in the scheme, from both professional advisers and potential borrowers. It is, of course, too early to say how many of the inquiries will result in loans being offered and accepted, but, as always, there is much more that can be done to make known to all firms in the region what is available. I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members will draw this scheme to the attention of firms which talk about being excluded from the European schemes. They now have this one available to them. Details are available from the Department of Industry's small firms centre in Birmingham and if anyone is interested in applying for a loan he should approach the ICFC's office in Birmingham. I hope that before long some of the clearing banks will also join the scheme.
I have talked about regional aid. As I have often stressed in terms of Government assistance—assistance from the taxpayer—it is vital, if we are to get an accurate picture, not to exaggerate the impact of the aid through regional industrial instruments and to ignore what comes in other ways. I give just one or two examples of relevance to the west midlands.
The hon. Gentleman has urged the Government to do something about the west midlands. I want him to know what the Government have been doing. BL has received funding to date of £1,230 million, a substantial proportion of which will have gone direct to the car industry and its component suppliers in the west midlands. This compares with £1·87 billion to the end of December 1982 in regional development grants for all regions, not just one. That sets the matter in context.
It must surely be good news for the west midlands that BL is now in a much better position to compete in the market. It has new models produced with modern facilities and much higher levels of productivity. With Longbridge and the LM 10 facilities at Cowley, we are now achieving productivity levels that are comparable to the best in Europe. Productivity in Jaguar doubled between 1980 and 1982. In Austin Rover, productivity jumped from 5·9 cars per man year in 1979—when we took office—to 10·1 in 1982. The management, supported by the Government, achieved that.

Mr. Peter Snape: With full co-operation from the shop floor.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that there was full co-operation throughout the firm. In 1982 there was a loss of less than one working day through disputes in the Austin Rover group. The future of the Austin Rover group depends very much on the new model and I am sure that the whole House will wish it every success on its launch next month. When Opposition Members ask what we are doing for the west midlands, there is the evidence. In the most crucial industry in the west midlands enormous strides have been made in putting right mistakes and causes of trouble and making it thoroughly competitive again.
I know that there is great concern among many of my hon. Friends about the large tariff differences between Spain and ourselves on cars. I shall not dwell on that today, because there was a substantial exchange yesterday during Question Time. Suffice it to say that the Government have been very active in promoting their views and urging action within the Commission, with a great deal of speed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is in Brussels today at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, to which the Commission is reporting on its continuing discussions. As my hon. Friends know, he will be meeting industry leaders in the west midlands next Monday, and my hon. Friends will wish to await the outcome of those meetings.
Mention has been made of BL's components strategy—

Mr. Nick Budgen: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way, but I am anxious to enable as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate.
I should like to make several quick points about the components strategy. First, individual decisions on the source of supply of component are rightly a matter for the commercial judgment of the BL board of management. I know that BL understands the benefits, both to itself and to the United Kingdom's economy as a whole, of a strong United Kingdom components industry. At the same time,

it cannot lose sight of the need to keep down its costs and so improve its overall competitiveness. This same consideration must, of course, apply to component manufacturers if they are to survive and to supply not only BL but other United Kingdom and foreign car manufacturers. The Government have asked to be kept informed on those matters and have taken a close interest in them.
Secondly, we have made it clear that component manufacturers are eligible for the various forms of financial assistance available from the Government, through selective financial assistance and in other ways, towards capital investment or innovation projects. Thirdly, I am sure that the House will have been pleased to learn recently that Dunlop and Austin Rover have reached agreement on a contract for Dunlop to supply wheels to Austin Rover. The retention of this business is of great importance to Coventry. I should point out that BL's use of suppliers in the United Kingdom remains at the very high level of around 90 per cent. Finally, it is worth noting that the recent, adjustment in exchange rates will have had a beneficial impact on this issue.
The assistance that the Department of Industry gives for both investment and innovation is very important to the building up of the new industries. Since May 1979, offers of £29 million have been made for investment in the west midlands under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Since April 1981, offers of £24 million have been made under the innovation schemes.
Another important point that is often not brought out is that major firms in the region, such as GEC, have benefited from Government assistance in their efforts to win major overseas contracts. The Castle Peak power station in Hong Kong is expected to be worth some £200 million to factories in the west midlands, and the Rihand power station in India will be worth a further £40 million. Those are significant benefits for the west midlands.
There are also significant benefits to the west midlands from the new urban initiatives announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 February 1983. As has been said, from 1 April 1983 Coventry and Sandwell will join Wolverhampton as programme authorities and Walsall will become a designated district. Birmingham is already a partnership authority. Resources allocated to these authorities will total £32 million for 1983–84 and emphasis will be given to projects that contribute to the economic regeneration of the older industrial areas.
In addition, the urban development grant scheme will be available within all of these areas. The scheme was launched last April and is designed to use public funds to attract much larger resources from the private sector, and, of the 41 projects so far approved nationally, six are in the west midlands. These will involve total estimated project costs of almost £5·5 million. A substantial number of other projects are currently at a detailed state of negotiation. Dudley was one of the first enterprise zones and since designation 300 acres have become available for new development. Discussions on establishing an enterprise zone in Telford are well advanced. The zone will consist of 275 acres of publicly and privately owned land and will come into operation this summer. The combination of relaxed planning controls and other incentives to development will be a tremendous boost to this part of the west midlands, which has suffered badly during the recession.
Another important aspect is that more than 125,000 people in the west midlands currently benefit from the Government's special employment and training measures, including 67,000 under the youth opportunities programme. It is worth referring to such matters, because they show what the Government are doing to build up new skills and a new industrial base. I wish that I had more time to develop that argument, because there is much that I could say about what is being done by way of science parks and so on to build up those new industries.
I must mention briefly the impact of the Government's 98 measures that are exclusively or mainly directed to encourage small businesses. The small business sector has always been vital to the west midlands' economy and will be crucial in helping to achieve the transition to the newer industries that the region needs. Suffice it to say that small businesses in the region have benefited greatly from our measures in this area. Indeed, 742 loans have been guaranteed under the loan guarantee scheme, to a value of £24·3 million, in the region so far.
The west midlands, as was to be expected and as we had always hoped and intended, has benefited particularly from the small engineering firms investment scheme. To date, 261 offers totalling over £6 million have been made to west midlands companies under the scheme. The small firms service continues to receive a very high level of inquiries and offers a marked degree of consultancy help and advice to many small businesses in the region. One of the five pilot areas for the enterprise allowance has been in the west midlands, in Coventry, and that, too, has seen a very substantial take-up—519 people out of 660 applicants benefited in Coventry to the end of January this year. I know of the many efforts that have been made by others in the private sector, chambers of commerce, local authorities and so on to help to build up the small business sector in the west midlands.
I have spelt out—although briefly—the many ways in which west midlands industry and commerce are benefiting from direct Government measures, and I have done so because of the charge by Opposition Members, repeated today, that assistance is going elsewhere and not to the west midlands. It is necessary to nail that charge and to put the record straight, but I am the first to acknowledge that, far more than these measures, what industry wants and what the west midlands needs is success with the Government's long-term economic strategy. Only in that way will we get real competitiveness back into the United Kingdom economy.
The fact that the annual inflation rate is now down to 4·9 per cent.—the lowest level for 13 years—must be good news, because it is a critical factor in restoring our competitiveness—[Interruption.] I shall tell hon. Members what industry says in a moment. Without doubt the key to sustained recovery, leaving aside the other major question of world demand, over which we have little control, is to regain and improve our competitiveness. Here too, in other ways, the news is better. In view of the time I shall not go into the figures now, but productivity compared with our recent past and with other countries is improving all the time. But there is still lost ground to make up.
In that context, helping with industry's costs is vital—I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East—and is the area in which industry in the west

midlands as elsewhere most seeks action. The hon. Gentleman read out a list of things for which the CBI is calling, but that was rich coming from him, because they are all Conservative policies, which build on our strategy, and are the exact opposite of what a Labour Government would achieve. This Government have helped industry's own prodigious efforts to cut costs. We have cut the national insurance surcharge—Labour's tax on jobs—by two percentage points. The announcements last year on industrial gas and electricity prices should help further. The drop in interest rates has made a big difference to many companies' cash flow.
Let us contrast that action with such evidence as there is of Labour politicians in action and of the Labour party's proposals today. Let us consider rates, which are now the largest single tax on businesses, discounting the employers' national insurance contribution. The House knows of the many steps that the Government have taken to help on rates and to curb the excessive spending ambitions of some local authorities which in the past have found their additional spending underwritten year by year by the taxpayer, but which now face grant penalties if they continue to exceed spending targets through lavish plans. The contrast in the west midlands is there for all to see. A Tory-controlled council, Birmingham city council, has now been able by good housekeeping, prudent management and by the savings achieved through such steps as tendering for its refuse disposal contract, to announce this year a 12 per cent. cut for its ratepayers. It would be tragic if that success, which is vital to the industries and small business in the area, were negated by a substantial rate increase by the Socialist-controlled West Midlands county council.
This week we have seen the contrast painted all too clearly at the national level too. The London Business School has forecast that under a Labour Government's economic policies, which would trigger off a devaluation of sterling and a wages explosion, the country would be far worse off in every respect—inflation, unemployment, interest rates, the exchange rate and output—than under a Conservative Government. In particular, inflation would reach a massive 17 per cent. by 1986 and interest rates would also soar to 17 per cent.
It is not surprising, therefore, that we have heard so little from the Labour Front Bench today about how it would deal with the admitted and real west midlands problems. Opposition Members know that industry does not support them. They know that the people of the west midlands understand in their realistic and honest fashion what has gone wrong and what needs to be done to put it right. It is this Government's strategy that will restore the west midlands, on a new footing, to its much earlier position of industrial eminence. That is why we reject the motion.

Mr. Jack Ashley: In a lengthy speech the Minister spelt out the massive help which has been given to the west midlands, and has painted an attractive picture of Shangri-la. If we are to believe the Minister, everything that could be done is being done.
The Minister also attacked the Labour party for its policies. He cannot attack us for making party political points if he makes cheap party political points. Government Members complained throughout the last debate about party political points being made from this


side of the House. If the Government are as good as the Minister claims, he should explain why the west midlands has the lowest economic growth rate of any region in the last decade. It has suffered the greatest increase in unemployment in recent years. It has the most serious long-term unemployment problem of any region and it has more unemployed per vacancy than any other region.
Those are the facts, despite all the help that is supposed to have been given by the Government. That is the state to which the west midlands has been reduced by the Government. It is a political issue, and the Minister is right to make it such. The Government stand condemned for smashing the west midlands, despite the fact that the Minister has attempted to portray it as a fine prosperous area.
The west midlands is being greatly damaged by the Government. There should be no doubt that the blame for the condition of the area rests squarely upon the Government's economic policies. Dogmatic monetarism may have helped to reduce inflation but at the same time it has reduced the west midlands economy to crisis, verging on collapse. It is hard to imagine a more misguided policy.
Many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall try to be brief, especially in view of the very long speech by the Minister. One section of the west midlands that has not been given the attention it deserves is Staffordshire, especially north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. Staffordshire has suffered more than any other county in the region, and north Staffordshire has suffered most in Staffordshire.
Between 1979 and 1982 unemployment in Great Britain rose by 143 per cent., in the west midlands by 192 per cent., in Staffordshire by 199 per cent. and in north Staffordshire by 219 per cent. The terrible fact is that unemployment in north Staffordshire has more than trebled during this period.
It is all very well for Ministers to speak complacently about the rationalisation of industry, but many job losses in Staffordshire are due not to rationalisation but to closures. In the last two years nearly 30 per cent. of those who have lost their jobs lost them through closures. Their jobs have vanished; they have gone for ever. They are a permanent loss to our industrial base.
The pottery industry has become vulnerable to closures. The main trade union for pottery workers, the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union, has estimated that, of 50,000 pottery jobs in the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area, no fewer than 20,000 have gone. There are sometimes understandable reasons for job losses in old-fashioned and declining industries in the face of international competition, but there can be no justification for damaging such a progressive industry as the pottery industry, which exports a high percentage of its products, which has adapted to industrial change, and which has been free of industrial disputes. If the Government do not change their policies they will kill the goose that lays the porcelain eggs.
We have also suffered severe losses in the steel industry, notably when Shelton closed, and we are now losing jobs in the rubber industry. The Michelin company, which is based in my constituency, recently annouced a cut of 4,000 jobs in the next two years; 1,000 are in Stoke-on-Trent, which is already devastated by unemployment.
Thus, in stable, sensible Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, we are facing an industrial crisis. The fine skills of the people are being corroded by unemployment;

the optimism of youngsters is being blunted by despair; the long-term unemployed are becoming embittered, and women workers are losing hope.
I want to make what I regard as constructive proposals. First, the Government should examine closely the evidence of dumping cheap goods from foreign countries on British markets. One leading business man in the pottery industry has said that Italy and Spain are dumping millions of ceramic tiles here, at less than they cost to produce. I hope the Minister will consider that point. Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire can face competition but we cannot face unfair competition, and we want the Minister to take action.
Secondly, the Government should give more encouragement and assistance to development associations. The Staffordshire development association has done valuable work in the area and over 2,000 jobs have emerged from projects which it has assisted. That does not solve the problem, but it helps.
Thirdly, the Government should assist the diversification of industry in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. The area is excessively reliant on too few industries; it needs to widen its base and to take advantage of technological advances.
Fourthly, the Government should stop improvising and start planning for the future. When the recession ends, industrial capacity is unlikely to be made up, because of technological developments. Unless in the long term we develop a new approach to the organisation of work, the frightful and frightening divisive gap between employed and unemployed will become wider and more menacing. Social unrest will become more than a distant fear; it will become a reality.
Fifthly, the Government should become more alert and responsive to economic changes and their consequences. It is far too easy to lay down a blanket policy such as monetarism and to stick to it, calling it a resolute Approach for reducing inflation. Such lack of sensitivity and flexibility will result not only in the destruction of jobs but also in the loss of opportunity to create new ones.
Sixthly, despite some adjustments in the exchange rate, I hope that the Government will pursue policies to ensure that we keep a realistic exchange rate. The pottery and rubber industries have been greatly damaged by an unrealistic exchange rate.
Finally, as no region can prosper without general national prosperity—although I am pleading for Stoke-on-Trent, north Staffordshire and the west midlands—the Government should adopt a reflationary policy using, rather than abusing, the concept of public expenditure.
I make these proposals in the hope that Ministers are at last beginning to realise the frightful and frightening consequences of existing policies. Governments cannot wave magic wands, but they can and should play an important role in creating a healthy and prosperous economy.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Few hon. Members are held in greater respect that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I listened with interest to the constructive proposals that he made. I do not agree with all of them. With some, I can go along with the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot, however, accept his stricture that the Government have been responsible for smashing the west midlands. Without the actions of the


Government, it is doubtful whether the industries of the west midlands would be anything like as viable and prosperous as they are likely to become. I intend to give the figures to the House.
The truth, as all hon. Members know, is that between the two wars and immediately after the last war the west midlands became not only the greatest workshop of this country but also one of the great workshops of the world. For too long, it was taken for granted. For too long, the motor industry, which, along with the foundry industry, was at the heart of a great deal of it, was bedevilled by Government policies, by ever-increasing demands for wages, by under-productivity, and by unions which, although over-powerful, were unable to control wildcat strikes by their members. It was bedevilled by the go-slow policies of successive Governments, Conservative as well as Labour.
Between 1964 and 1970, I heard Donald Stokes and others, at that time at the head of British Leyland, complain frequently that they were never given a fair chance to develop their industry. As soon as it was prosperous, it was made the subject of Government stop-go policies. Whenever it achieved success and desired to expand, it found that IDCs had been used to establish factories in parts of the country that were uneconomic and where labour relations were a great deal worse than those that prevailed at the time in the west midlands. The whole industry was taken for granted. It was bedevilled by Government policies and by gross under-productivity.
Created by a Labour Government in its united form, British Leyland had to be saved by public money and was put into the hands of a man who did a great deal to bring it back on to the road to prosperity. I refer to Michael Edwardes, who achieved a great deal for Leyland. As a result, Leyland now has a viable future. I speak as an hon. Member in whose constituency an important part of Leyland is located. If it succeeds, in due course the industries that cater for the motor industry will also succeed.
I accept that spare parts are at the moment being brought from abroad. Why? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] It is not shame at all. British industry, if it is to survive, must be competitive. When British industry can supply the British motor industry with the parts that it needs at competitive prices, that industry will go with open arms to British industry for those parts. These home truths are not much liked by Opposition Members. However, every observer of British industry knows that they are true.

Mr. Peter Snape: Clichés.

Mr. Grieve: One example of the gross over-optimism that prevailed in the motor industry only a few years ago was the investment of £31 million of public money in the new Rover car assembly lines in my constituency. It was assumed that there would be a demand for hundreds of Rover motor cars a week. The figure had never been attained previously and it has never been reached since. It is a tragedy for Solihull that Rover has had to abandon those assembly lines and switch manufacture to Cowley. I am glad to say that production at Cowley is going well. The loss of jobs has been much reduced by the fact that 1,100 new workers have been taken on at Cowley, although 2,000 lost their jobs in Solihull.
I wish to give figures showing the present state of British Leyland, especially the Land Rover and the Range Rover, which are still made in my constituency, and the Austin Rover company. The figures from both give grounds for qualified optimism. I am glad to be able to underline in this respect the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. In 1982, the Land Rover achieved £220 million of exports. Eighty per cent. of British production of utility vehicles was supplied by Land Rover—and that was in a difficult year. Increased production was achieved at a time when Mercedes was cutting back on production of utility vehicles. Altogether, 52,000 vehicles were produced by Austin Rover in 1982, in the face of Japanese competition. Over 300 a week are now being produced and sales have improved by 12 per cent.
At present, as the House will be aware, £200 million is being invested in a programme for a new Land Rover. It will probably be launched next month. I am sure that all hon. Members will join in wishing the Land Rover and the Range Rover company success in this great new enterprise.
Another success story has been the Freight Rover. Nothing has been heard about it in the debate. It is a small but nevertheless important part of the motor industry. There has been success with the Sherpa van range. In less than a year, the output of vans has been doubled. The company that was producing 190 vehicles a week in January 1981 is now producing 400 vehicles a week. A new range has been produced. British Telecom has contracted for 3,000 vehicles. I am glad to see that British Telecom is buying British. I suggest to hon. Members that buying British is one way to help this country. There are far too many foreign cars in the House of Commons car park.
I come now to the Austin Rover end of BL. The group is on target to break even this year. A new medium range car is being manufactured at Cowley, and £210 million is being invested in it. Cowley has taken on 1,100 more people.
At Longbridge, the Metro was the best-selling car in Great Britain last year. Sales in Europe were up 25 per cent. on 1981. BL achieved its highest sales figures in Europe since 1978, with 51,000 cars being exported to France and Italy. The company's export record is that sales of all cars to France increased by 39 per cent. and to Italy by 16 per cent. in 1982. More than 37,000 cars went to France and 32,000 to Italy. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, industrial relations were particularly good at Austin Rover in 1982. The number of hours lost through disputes amounted to less than one day. Productivity has risen by 20 per cent. over the past 12 months and doubled over four years.
To underline the point that I was making about under-productivity, at Longbridge seven cars per man per year were produced in 1980 and 25 cars per man per year in 1982. It is good news, but two swallows do not make a summer. It is a beginning. British Leyland—Austin Rover, Land Rover and Range Rover—is on course. If we can continue the support that the Government have already given, the principal factor being the reduction in inflation, there is a chance for the west midlands motor industry.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and the


Minister began their speeches with a long record of excuses for the state of the west midlands. I hope that Conservative Members will not have the cheek this afternoon, as they have in previous debates, to suggest that the world recession is the chief cause of our industrial and employment problems. A glance at the OECD's comparable figures for unemployment will disabuse them of that argument, as will the Secretary of State's admission that in all other countries of the European Community unemployment since May 1979 has increased by 88 per cent. while in this country it has increased by 154 per cent.
Responsibility for the horrific scene in this country rests with the Government. They have used unemployment as a weapon against inflation. Their policies have been the principal cause of job losses. In the west midlands, even the Government's own "cooked" figures show an increase of almost 230 per cent. since 1979. I find it difficult to comprehend such an increase. I do not intend to tour the ruins of the region left by four years of Tory policies. We have experienced a far higher rate of increase in job losses than any other region.
I wonder whether it is the Government's neglect of the region and their constant refusal to recognise the need for special assistance that has spurred the European Commission to take some action to halt the downward spiral. I have been pressing the Commission for a long time to see what help might be given to places in the black country, such as West Bromich, Tipton and Wednesbury, when assisted area status is denied to the entire region.
Yesterday, I received a letter from Brussels from the Commissioner responsible for social affairs and employment policies about proposals which seem to me to take the criteria for funding out of the Government's hands by amending the operation of the social fund in such a way that the west midlands and areas within it might have access to resources which we have been constantly denied by the inaction of our own Government.
The Commissioner says:
in the proposals we have made regarding the review of the European Social Fund.… we are suggesting that the fund should not in future be linked in any way to regional policy classifications decided at national level.
It seems a clear statement. It is a considerable and welcome departure from previous policy.
I understand that the proposals will enable the region to participate in the use of the funds for the improvement of employment opportunities, development of employment policy and restructuring. In other words, we would have access to resources to which we have a legitimate claim but which have been placed out of bounds by this Government.
The proposals go a step further. They recognise that while there are areas, such as West Bromich, where unemployment levels are higher than the regional average, within such areas there are pockets of even higher unemployment which reach 22 per cent. to 25 per cent. The proposals recognise that these black spots are disguised by the surrounding areas which may have less serious problems. Therefore, under the proposals headed
Selection of application for funding
the criteria proposed have four components of equal worth.
The first is overall unemployment levels. We all know that the west midlands unemployment levels are about 4 per cent. higher than the national average. The area will qualify on that basis.
The second component is long-term unemployment. The increase in those out of work for over a year in the west midlands since the Government came to office has been 380 per cent. We shall qualify on that basis.
The third component is youth unemployment. Since the Government took office, the numbers of unemployed persons under the age of 20 in the west midlands have risen 620 per cent. That is disgusting. In my area, Sandwell, the increase is 552 per cent.
The fourth component is GDP per head of population, which we all know has dropped below the national average.
There is ample evidence to show that the west midlands, and parts of it, will qualify for intervention. The criteria for selectivity are changing in such a way as to concentrate finance in areas of greatest need, irrespective of regional classification.
The Commissioner's letter continues:
The whole debate about assisted areas status in the UK should, therefore, no longer be relevant, at least as regards the future interventions of the Social Fund.
These proposals, welcome as they are, represent a condemnation of the Government's inertia and failure to recognise the west midlands' demise. I gave notice this morning to the office of the Minister who will wind up that I want some comments on these proposals. I want to know whether they have yet reached the Council of Ministers, and, if not, why not? When will they reach the Council? When can we look forward to their implementation and receive some help for the west midlands?
With regard to the immediate situation, the regional CBI and the chambers of commerce have called on the Government for capital investment projects in the region. In a survey issued late last year, the chambers of commerce said that they wanted early implementation of capital spending programmes to provide much needed encouragement to the construction and manufacturing industries in the region. I agree with them. I shall cite one or two examples of areas where action now would achieve a reduction in unemployment and at the same time provide a boost to manufacturing output.
There are 100,000 people on council housing waiting lists in the region. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Federation of Housing Associations. The Birmingham Architectural Association reports that 500,000 houses in the region are in urgent need of repair. On the Government's own figures, 200,000 construction workers in the region are on the dole and there are enough bricks stockpiled to build a town the size of Leicester. Yet the Government persist in standing between available workers and unused materials, while families in the region pay a high price in the loss of their livelihoods.
A survey by the Council of Estate Management shows that parts of the Birmingham conurbation require extensive investments in water pipes. Complaints to the Severn-Trent water authority show the need to refurbish water mains at an estimated cost of £50 million just for the backlog, and annual expenditure of at least £2 million to keep pace with deterioration. The authority reports a decaying sewerage system, with 220 miles of tunnels nearly 100 years old and urgently in need of attention. It reports that a 10-year programme of repair and replacement is needed at a cost of about £10 million per year. It was ironic and tragic that a year ago, on the day when I helped to launch Labour's "Plan for Jobs" in the region and spelt out the type of immediate action that


could be taken, a midlands firm with a famous household name, which for generations had manufactured pipes, tunnelling and sewerage equipment, announced that it was to close because its order books were empty. The tragic fact is that the Government cannot match men and materials.
There are other examples where investment of this kind would arrest the decay in manufacturing and at the same time rescue the crumbling infrastructure. That approach, however, whether it comes from the Opposition, the TUC or even from the Government's own friends, is rejected by the Prime Minister, who again and again repeats that we cannot solve our problems by throwing money at them. I tell the right hon. Lady that neither can she go on throwing our problems on the scrap heap of inattention and indifference.
Conservative Members who argue that spending on public sector projects and programmes is the root of all evil should realise that it is the Conservative Government who have failed to make the distinction between spending for investment and spending for consumption, between spending for the accumulation of goods and spending on investment for a secure future. It is the Conservatives who stand accused of squandering the wealth from the North sea and much else in support of ever-lengthening dole queues. It is the Government who are the big spenders, because unemployment is the biggest spender of all. There is work to be done in the region and there are people to do it. If the Government are not prepared to get on with the job, they should get out and let others tackle it.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) very far, as time is short. I merely comment that she seems to have found a new love for the Common Market, which she hopes will bail West Bromwich out of some of its difficulties.
I congratulate the Government on some of the things that they have done. In my division, through management efficiency and work force ability, GEC has managed to increase both orders and employment. Yet that is one of the firms that the Opposition propose to nationalise. How absurd can one get?
I wish to take up some of the serious points made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I believe that the Government could provide genuine and immediate help to the west midlands in two ways. First, dumping is undoubtedly taking place in some sectors. The boot and shoe industry is a clear example, as are those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The influx of steel products from the Common Market at below price is against every arrangement with the Common Market and should be stopped at once.
In the long term, it is frightening to remember that the west midlands is—or was—the industrial heart of this country, and it is truly alarming to note from the latest figures that for the first time in history this country now has an adverse balance of payments in relation to manufactured goods. That should disturb us all.
Personally, I do not believe that these things can be put right with little grants of £50,000 here or there or with money from the EC. A major problem must be put right. Without the true reinvigoration of British manufacturing

industry, what future will this country have after the oil has gone but to sing for its supper, putting on barbecues and morris dancing for visitors? I am sure that the whole House agrees that that basic problem must be tackled by all political parties both now and in the years to come.
There are two main ways in which the problem can be tackled. First, we must ensure that costs for industry are reduced. A great deal more could be done in that sphere. Rating of industrial and commercial properties should be re-examined de novo and those rates should be decided not by local authorities but by central Government. Secondly, we should see what can be done about taxes. It is ludicrous in this day and age that there should be a tax on employment, and it should be removed as soon as possible.
Far more fundamental, however, are the two wider questions of what can be done about the world economy and home investment. One thing is certain. The kind of investment that I wish to see—the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West wants public investment, but I believe that it must come from the private sector or from a mixture of private and public sector—can only be achieved through profits, and the only way to ensure that profits can be made is by reducing the burden on industry. That is the first stage.
I believe that it is impossible in the long term to achieve industrial revival when real rates of interest are running at 8 per cent., as is happening throughout the western world today. The rate of inflation here is 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., yet most countries are paying 13 per cent. or 14 per cent. for their money. It is simply not worth investing in British industry when that kind of return can be achieved elsewhere. As I have said many times, the great problem facing western capitalism today is to bring interest rates into line. That is why, although it may seem a long way from the west midlands, I believe that the summit conference that is shortly to be held must achieve the vital step of starting some movement so that interest rates can be brought into line. Some of the debts could be put on one side, although I shall not go into detail about that today. World trade must be revived and interest rates brought down. That is the key to the recovery of western capitalism.
These are serious times. Only through those two methods can we achieve a revival. We must ensure that industry has profits to reinvest. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South agrees that there are great areas in the west midlands in which new investment is needed. The big companies and the smaller companies that are growing up need a big change in their industrial objectives. That must be done through profits. Above all else, we must have joint action with the Japanese, the Germans and other sound economies—possibly the Americans—to draw the world out of its dangerous and vast depression. We must ensure that Britain's industrial base remains sound and profitable.

5 pm

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) because I entirely agree with him about the great danger to the present world economic order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said recently in Birmingham that the whole banking system is threatened with collapse unless great industrial nations join together and follow one policy.
I am an extreme pessimist about the whole of our economic future. The numbers in work are decreasing rapidly, and the desecration of the industrial might of the west midlands means that the superannuation, pension and other funds upon which we rely for our future prosperity are in grave jeopardy. That message must be spelt out to those still in work. The industrial might of Birmingham is being desecrated; no one can doubt that. There is a remarkable consensus among the CBI, the chambers of commerce, and such firms as Joseph Lucas and IMI, about what needs to be done about the destruction of the industrial might of the west midlands and the power base of industrial Birmingham.
I represent the inner city constituency of Small Heath. The Government have placed a time bomb under the social fabric of our cities and their industrial life. In Small Heath, 80 to 90 per cent. of last year's school leavers still do not have jobs. What do the Government think that means in social terms for the peace and harmony of our inner-city communities? It is devastating. A whole generation of school leavers will never know the dignity of work. Men and women throughout Birmingham have been made redundant. Some of them are family men with responsibilities, aged between 40 and 50, who know that they will never work again. That must be the background to the debate.
The Government have brought the problems upon themselves, not least through their tremendous cuts in social services, which have been reduced to a shell in many parts of the west midlands. That affects the old, the sick and the needy, and especially one-parent families. In many of the schools in Small Heath, 60 or 70 per cent. of the children come from one-parent families. The social consequences of the Government's policies during the past two or three years, which have laid waste industrial Birmingham and the west midlands, are too grave for any of us to contemplate.
The Minister made a gramophone speech today. It was the same speech that his predecessor made last year and the year before. It was in contradiction of everything that the Tory party said in 1979 during the election campaign. Then the theme was that Labour policies were not working, and that the Tories would put things right.
The work force in Joseph Lucas in 1979 was 20,000-plus. This year it is 13,000, with another 1,200 redundancies to come, together with another 500 redundancies at Girling. The figure for apprenticeships tells its own story. Joseph Lucas used to take on 50 apprentices a year. This year, the figure has been reduced to 25 and next year it will be 13. Yet those represent the skills of our industry on which any growth in Birmingham and the west midlands must depend.
I have heard horrific stories about the British car industry. Ten years ago it produced 1£7 million cars, but it now produces less than 980,000. We no longer have a car manufacturing industry in Birmingham and the west midlands—we have a car assembly industry. That is the heart of the problem. What can be done about it? I shall spell that out. First, there must be a dramatic change in the economic direction of Britain to produce investment in industry and to create jobs. That means an immediate increase in public expenditure in local government and health services. We must use our oil revenue to invest in the future and to create new industries. What nonsense it

is for the whole of our oil revenue to be spent on unemployment and social security benefits rather than on investment in the future of British industry.
Secondly, we must spend money on real jobs for youngsters and on apprenticeships. There is hopelessness in our constituencies when youngsters are training on the special schemes but know that that does not mean real jobs. They know that there will be no jobs for them at the end of the day. We must create real jobs in industry.
Thirdly, we must stop the ridiculous sales tax imposed on the British motor industry. It is nonsense to have a 10 per cent. sales tax ex-works, and then to impose 15 per cent. VAT. I am not surprised that the component industry says time and time again that in no other area is there such a self-imposed burden on the products of British industry.
Fourthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) said, we must demand some harmonisation in the EC's external tariffs. The Government must take immediate action about the flooding of Britain with motor car components from Spain and Japan. The Prime Minister and Ministers talk about it—the Minister did so today, and I am sure that he was sincere. Ministers want to act, but they are not acting. They must act today. Spain has imposed a 57 per cent tax on British imports, yet it directly, or indirectly through Vauxhall or other companies, sends imports to Britain with a tariff of only 9·2 per cent. Have we all gone mad? Should we continue to allow that to happen in the midst of a recession and growing unemployment?
What do the Government intend to do about the Japanese? We constantly send trade delegations to Japan, which return with words of comfort from the Japanese, who must be laughing while they bank the money from their import penetration of western Europe. Italy has more sense; it does not allow any penetration from the Japanese motor market. France allows only 2 per cent. penetration; Belgium, Holland, Ireland and Denmark only 4 per cent.; and Germany 8 per cent. Britain has an import penetration of 11 per cent.
The Government are charged with defending the British economy and the British people from persistent import penetration by the Japanese. They are doing nothing about it. We cannot any longer listen to the honeyed words of the gentlemen in Tokyo. We must take action immediately.
Fifthly, we must control manufactured imports. The volume of manufactured imports to Britain this year has exceeded, for the first time, the volume of British industrial production. That is a recipe for disaster It is also astonishing. Ministers of this Government have presided over that. We should immediately require that a minimum fixed percentage of components in all motor cars that are imported here should be made in Britain. We must play fair with the British components industry, if necessary by using the measures that we are allowed to take under EC provisions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Howell: We must protect the British motor car component industry.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howell: No, I must finish quickly; otherwise I would.
Sixthly, we must develop sensible investment policies. For example, Lucas Aerospace drew to my attention a scheme at Huyton in which the Government provided the cost of buildings and plant and then leased them back to Lucas Aerospace. That is one way to get things moving and to provide the necessary investment.
Seventhly, we need to designate Birmingham and the west midlands as special development areas. I listened to what the Minister said about that. I hope that he does not mind my saying that he was prescribing sticking plasters when we need a blood transfusion. The Government's urban grant and grants from the EC are hopelessly inadequate. We must attract EC regional grants, but we are not doing so. Why cannot Birmingham, which has the fastest growing rate of unemployment in the country, attract regional grant? Why is the Industry Act 1972 proving so deficient for the west midlands? Why is the Science and Technology Act 1965 hopelessly inappropriate to the needs of the west midlands now?
Eighthly, we need massive urban aid and partnership grants. We need infrastructure. As the CBI said, we need green belts. It should be possible to whip out the old sewerage pipes and cellars and provide green field sites for industry in the heart of our blighted industrial areas. We need tremendous house building and house improvement schemes as well as general environmental ones.
Finally, as we must now choose between unemployment at the beginning of the life cycle for school leavers, or earlier retirement for people at the end of that cycle, it would be much more intelligent to provide Government funds so that people who have worked all their lives in industry and want to retire early can do so. There are things which can be done now, which Birmingham wants to be done now and which the west midlands needs. Let the Government get on and do them.

Mr. John Stokes: It is rather a pity that this debate, which is on such a serious subject, should lend itself to people who make what are clearly partly polemical points. I shall try to avoid that.
I have noticed that the motion is not exactly couched in moderate terms. There is not much common sense about it. There is no mention, for instance, of the world slump. Nor is there any mention of the competitiveness, or lack of it, of firms in the west midlands. Nor is there any mention of the need there, which we all agree exists, for some of the higher technologies. The motion is clearly drafted in party political terms. It bears no relation to the true state of affairs in that part of the country.
This subject was debated only a fortnight ago. I have read that debate through again. One naturally wonders what new or helpful ideas can come from us today. It is a fallacy to think that from our deliberations today will come a solution or a wonder remedy. In my experience, the House is short of hon. Members with industrial experience, either as managers or as workers. It must infuriate industrial leaders who face difficult circumstances to hear some people pontificating here when they have no real knowledge of the problems involved. Nor does the House have much influence on the state of the world economy.
We all know that we are now going through the most serious recession since the 1930s. Moreover, we all know

that it was caused by the fantastic rise in the price of oil. Despite what defeatists say, the fall in the price of oil may give British industry, including that in the west midlands, just the stimulus it needs—more, perhaps, than anything that any Government can do. Of course, I agree with those hon. Members who have talked about the imbalance of tariffs between ourselves and Spain and the unfairness of the trading customs of many foreign companies.
We in the west midlands are new to slump. Unlike Scotland and the north, we have never really had bad times before. Indeed, when there were bad times, people flocked to the midlands for work. Now the bad times in the midlands are as bad as in Scotland. It is not that people complain. Hon. Members never stop complaining, but I find that my constituents, at whom I marvel, never complain. They do not blame the Government, the Prime Minister or me.
Traditional industry in the midlands was hit by the world slump. It was probably too production-orientated. Marketing and sales were sometimes neglected. Firms made goods and hoped that there would be customers all over the world to buy them. Moreover, basic research and development was not always all that it should have been. Then there was the overmanning and lack of competitiveness in many companies. That has now been largely put right.
In the west midlands, we are far too dependent on traditional metal-bashing and engineering industries. We do not have enough of the higher technologies. We are far behind Scotland, which now has a high proportion of such new high technologies. Moreover, we must think whether industry should cater more for the needs of the leisure and service industries, the needs of which are bound to increase as the working week becomes shorter, people retire earlier and holidays get longer.
One complaint of industry in the west midlands has, and which I wholeheartedly share, is the colossal burden of rates, about which we have heard nothing from the Opposition. We have heard nothing about the awful burden that the West Midlands county council puts on every business in that part of the country. We also have to bear the charges of the nationalised industries, including energy costs. Those charges rise inexorably, although there has, at last, been some remission. Those monolithic corporations, which are not subject to competition, have not slimmed as private industry has done and are still barely aware of the realities of commercial life. The sooner they are taken over by private enterprise the better.
One vital sector which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned is the need to foster the small business. Quite a lot has been done—all of us are aware of that from our constituencies—but more could be done. In particular, loans from the banks in the second or third year of a new business, when it is just getting it second wind, are still too hard to get and—if my hon. Friend the Minister will listen—too expensive.
Industry in the west midlands looks to the Budget for some encouragement. The most important contribution that the Budget could make is to improve morale. Morale is everything, in peace or war, and morale, I am afraid, is low in the west midlands. We must have confidence and hope from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A reduction in personal taxation will help demand and industry must be ready to satisfy it.
The upturn will come and firms must make the necessary preparations. I was distressed the other day to


hear the head of a huge construction business say that already it was short of bricklayers and was not training enough. That must be put right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser), who spoke shortly and so well, referred to the vital importance of interest rates. I realise that that is a world problem more than our problem. However, with inflation reducing and interest rates remaining so high, it is difficult to borrow money, get hold of staff, obtain raw materials, make products and then have a profit at the end. That is a problem which I hope will be dealt with by the Government during the summer.
Industry in the west midlands does not expect or want handouts but it expects parity with the other regions of the United Kingdom. The regions of England are, in their way, quite as important as places in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Many of us think that the building industry could be busier. One suggestion is tax help for householders who maintain and improve their property or who engage in improvements, for example to save energy. Such a scheme would help builders and reduce the large black economy, which has been with us for years in the west midlands. The black economy operators would have to produce proper bills for householders, who would then claim tax relief on the amounts set out.
Such schemes are only palliatives. I do not believe, despite the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), that people in, the west midlands expect vast public works. They ask in their sensible way, "Where is the money coming from?" If there is to be new commercial investment, they equally sensibly ask, "Where are the customers?" It is customers that industry wants, and customers cannot be produced by the Opposition's rhetoric. A new scheme whereby the Government produce a small sum which can then be topped up by a much larger sum by private enterprise is extremely sound. I am glad that Halesowen, for the first time in history, has had some tangible benefit from the Government.
We must not be too depressed. In the west midlands we have the brains, the entrepreneurs, the finest skilled work force in England and the right attitude. In some respects our training may need improving, especially in higher technology, but young men and women in the west midlands want to be trained, want to learn a job and, unlike others in some parts of the world, do not all want to become school teachers, for example.
When the world upturn comes, as it surely will in 1984, we may see a considerable recovery in the west midlands, which is so well placed, geographically and in other ways. Labour Members play a gramophone record of gloom. It never does, either in public or private life, to exaggerate our fears. I have the greatest faith in the Government and so, according to the polls, do an increasingly large number of the electorate. I believe that the Government's sound monetary policies will create the right climate for a proper and sustainable expansion.

Mrs. Renée Short: When?

Mr. Stokes: I also have the greatest faith in the men and women on the shop floor in the west midlands, who understand fully what is happening and the reasons, who will surely respond when the time comes.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: We have just heard from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) what I think can charitably be described as a fairly predictable speech. He seemed to argue that his constituents never complain to him about Government policy. There really can be only one reason for that. They know him to be such a devout supporter of this appalling Government that they think it a waste of time to make any representations to him.

Mrs. Renée Short: They probably never see him.

Mr. Faulds: I think that his two colleagues on the Government Front Bench may have read behind those veiled panegyric utterances some warnings about what the hon. Gentleman considers is necessary for the health of the west midlands. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's affirmation in that rather wan smile that wafted across the Chamber.
We have now had in the lifetime of this Government four debates on the industrial decline of the west midlands and the consequent surge in unemployment. At each of those four debates loyal Conservative Back Benchers—we have had them again this afternoon—have tried to excuse the Government by claiming that because of the concentration of the motor car industry and the component industry that decline in the West Midlands was inevitable, that Labour was as much to blame as the Conservative Government, and that, of course the world recession was the overriding reason behind the whole disastrous collapse.
Well those are convenient excuses for what has been happening, but did any of those Conservative Members with west midland seats, who are soon to be an extinct species—[Interruption.] We hear sickly laughter from the Conservative Benches, but we shall see at the next election.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Yes, wait and see.

Mr. Faulds: Did any of them warn their electorates that the Conservative Government would treble unemployment in our area? Did they warn that there were not factory walls long enough anywhere in the west midlands to accommodate the thousands upon thousands of unemployed in a Saatchi and Saatchi-type advertisement, riot of hired performers, but of real live unemployed? Do those Tory Members of Parliament not think now in all honesty that they were guilty of some misrepresentation in their unkept promises to mop up the dole queues? Did they warn that the Government's policies would actually close down factory after factory in the thriving west midlands?
In these four years of Conservative Government policies the west midlands—the great heartland of Britain's industrial activity—has suffered a 30 per cent. loss of its manufacturing capacity. Unemployment has trebled. No Conservative manifesto that I read spelt out those promises. At each of the four previous west midlands unemployment debates over the past four years, Ministers—this brace of sitting ducks is only the latest in a series, kept in perpetual motion so that he cannot be too easily peppered—have presented the Government's case. Did any of the Ministers who were put up at the Dispatch Box tell us the actual facts of what was happening in the west midlands? They made excuses. They said that things would soon be looking up and that the worst was about over. Well, we shall see.
The Cambridge econometric January forecast presents a much more pessimistic forecast than its October one. If the recent trends continue and the west midlands share of total United Kingdom unemployment continues to rise, unemployment levels of 18·6 per cent. by the end of this year and 28·6 per cent. by 1990 seem sadly inevitable. Can the Minister assure us that those figures will not ensue from present policies? He has no eagerness to leap up to deny them. Where is the promised upturn? The latest regional chamber of commerce survey does not augur well. More firms think that their turnover will worsen. Investment in plant and machinery has been revised downwards. Compared with the 1981 survey, fewer firms were reporting increases in United Kingdom and export orders and more were reporting decreases. There were more cash flow problems.
All those considerations can point only one way. They mean a further rundown in the labour force throughout the west midlands. When I moved into my constituency in 1966 the unemployment rate was 1·6 per cent. In terms of my constituency, the contraction and cessation of industrial activity has been catastrophic.
In previous debates on the west midlands situation I have itemised the litany of destruction caused by the Government's policies.
I do not want to weary the House, but in all fairness to my constituents I have to make the following comments. The closures in Smethwick have included all nationally and internationally known companies—Midland Motor Cylinders, Dartmouth Manufacturing, Smethwick Drop Forging, Chance Brothers, Chatwin's Foundry and others. Massive redundancies have been forced upon many companies in the area. Some companies have enforced those redundancies more willingly than others. Some have tried to keep their work forces as best they could but they have been driven by the hard economic circumstances to dump people whom they wanted to keep. There have been literally thousands of redundancies at the Co-op Bakery, Mansill Booth, Avery's, GKN, Birmid Qualcast, Mitchell and Butler, T.I. Sturney and so on.
Redundancy payments and the relief of the dole queue ease the situation to a small degree, but no one who has witnessed this deprivation of work among skilled workers, and indeed among unskilled workers, can fail to have sensed the affront to human dignity or the denial of personal fulfilment that these people suffer. Most of us who have constituency problems know only too well of the great increase in family problems that ensues.
Suffering on this scale was not inevitable. It has not been an act of God. It is the result of a series of acts by this Government. The suffering among the ethnic minorities—there are large number of these people in the west midlands—is of course directly increased by the sad and quite inexcusable extent to which covert discrimination is practised. The figures are available.
The unemployment percentage rates in the Dudley-Sandwell travel-to-work area, which of course includes Smethwick, have all but quadrupled from 4·4 per cent. in October 1978 to 16·6 per cent. in October 1982. In the area covered by the DHSS office in Smethwick, which does a marvellous job coping with the problem in which it is immersed, the number of unemployed people receiving supplementary benefit has risen from 1,228 in May

1979—already too high—to 8,730 in February 1983, and the total number claiming supplementary benefit in that period has risen from 7,980 to 20,115.
In all humanity, it cannot go on like this. The Government must alleviate some of the difficulties. What needs doing? It is all very well all of us complaining, but some of us have to make constructive suggestions. I think that one or two have been made from both sides of the House. A number of colleagues on both sides of the House have argued for assisted area designation for the region. Surely all the relevant criteria apply here. Assisted area designation should be introduced.
Although I am not happy about the prospect of import controls and have always argued against them, I am now persuaded that they should be applied very selectively where inequitable tariffs exist—certainly in the Spanish case. But I remain perturbed—perhaps my colleagues will part company from me here—at the prospect of import controls which would adversely affect the Third world and its developing patterns of trade.
There is not nearly enough Government subvention for essential innovation in advanced technologies, because it is clear that that drive into the future, with its needs, is not going to come from local or multinational industry here in Britain.
There is a very strong case for reconsidering energy costs for industry, in view of the quadrupling of those costs over the past decade.
We all receive regular representations about the impact of rates on industrial activity. It may be marginal, but perhaps we should consider the need for industrial derating. It is a nonsense that the problem of void rating has not been tackled. If there is an upturn, an awful lot of roofs will have to be replaced in the west midlands. The small engineering firms investment scheme should have much more funding.
All or some of those measures might help a little, but primarily we need demand in the economy to get that great industrial heart of Britain beating again. The Government can create that necessary change in the economic climate by reflating—however touchy a word that is to them, and however much they dislike it—but there are no signs that they are prepared to do so. The only real hope for Britain is that the electorate will decide within this year that they have had enough of Thatcherism and that they will return a Labour Government that can, and will, get this country under way again.

Mr. David Knox: The point that has come out most strongly in most of the speeches so far in the debate is that unemployment is the most serious issue in the west midlands at present. That is certainly the case in my constituency.
I suppose that it is not surprising that unemployment has risen more sharply in the west midlands than in other regions in the past decade. The west midlands is, after all, the manufacturing centre of this country and manufacturing industry has been particularly badly affected by depressed world markets, by currency fluctuations and by domestic Government policies since 1974. Indeed it is significant that manufacturing output peaked in early 1974 just at the time when the last Labour Government took office. Since then it has declined by almost a quarter. It is an inevitable consequence of this decline in manufacturing output that unemployment in the west


midlands has risen from well below the national average to well above it. It has risen from just over 46,000 in February 1974 to about 350,000 today, or from 2 per cent. in February 1974 to about 16 per cent. today.
The Labour party would do well to remember that it has been in government for rather more than half the time since 1974, so it shares the responsibility for this severe decline in manufacturing output and for the steep rise in unemployment during the past nine years. Obviously, I am particularly concerned about unemployment in my constituency which, for the 30 years after the war, enjoyed an exceptionally low rate of unemployment. Early in 1974 when the Labour Government took office, 650 people were out of work in my constituency. Now, 5,500 people are out of work in the Leek parliamentary constituency.
Despite this steep rise in unemployment, my constituency receives no special help, apart from assistance which the Development Commission has provided for the town of Leek and the moorlands area surrounding it. We are grateful for this help, which is making a real contribution to helping small businesses. But, given the problem, it is not very much.
Unemployment in Leek is accentuated by the fact that it borders Stoke-on-Trent. Many of my constituents are—or before they lost their jobs were—commuters to that city. We are told in the Leek constituency that we cannot have any special help because a good deal of the constituency is in the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area, and that the unemployment rate in Stoke-on-Trent is just about the national average. However, that argument does not take into account the fact that my constituents are disadvantaged in getting new jobs in Stoke-on-Trent compared to those living in the city.
When my constituents seek employment in Stoke, in competition with residents of Stoke, employers inevitably tend to take the person who lives nearer the job rather than someone who lives five or 10 miles away, particularly given the winter weather in north Staffordshire. My constituents therefore find it more difficult to find new jobs than those living nearer the jobs and, consequently, unemployment tends to be higher in my constituency than in other parts of the Stoke-on-Trent travel-to-work area. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider this matter again. It is a problem which faces not only my constituents but constituents in other parts of the country bordering large cities.
We are told that the present high level of unemployment is a consequence of excessive wage claims, restrictive practices, overmanning, bad labour relations, managerial incompetence and lack of investment. Industries in my constituency cover a wide range of manufacturing activity and the work force has a wide range of skills. The people are hard-working, but not highly paid. Labour relations have always been good and there have been few strikes. Firms have invested in new plant and equipment. My constituency has a good labour force that is engaged in efficient factories and mills. Management and unions are puzzled by the fact that, having done all the right things, they have not avoided the consequences of different behaviour. High unemployment has afflicted the area despite the exemplary behaviour of both management and workers.
The steep rise in unemployment during the past nine years must provide a strong case for special help. But, much though we would appreciate such help, it is important to recognise that the best way to help Leek and

the west midlands is to revive the national economy. Leek and the west midlands were prosperous and enjoyed full employment when Britain was prosperous and enjoyed full employment. But a return to prosperity will not happen automatically. The Government must act to raise aggregate demand for goods and services and, in turn, the demand for people to produce those extra goods and services. There are three ways in which this can be done.
First, the Government should cut industrial costs by abolishing the national insurance surcharge and by reducing energy prices to industry. Secondly, they should undertake worthwhile public sector investment projects. Thirdly, they should cut direct and indirect taxes and so leave people with more money to spend, which will create demand for goods and services, and so create demand for people to produce those goods and services.
The effect of those proposals would be to increase employment, which is what all hon. Members wish. We wish to bring the unemployed back into employment. Under-utilised capital equipment should be more fully used instead of standing idle or partially idle as it is now. If there was high demand, there would be more wealth for all of us to share. Unemployment in the west midlands is a waste of resources. It is socially damaging and divisive. Its reduction should be the Government's first priority.

Dr. John Gilbert: My hon. Friends have spoken eloquently about the problems of our region, Birmingham, the black country and their constituencies. They will forgive me if, on this occasion without apology, I speak about the problems of my constituency and borough.
Many hon. Members have quoted statistics about the decay of the west midlands economy. We have had the highest increase in unemployment of any region during the past few years. We have the worst long-term unemployment in the country, and we have had the greatest contraction in our employment base. Within that gruesome record, the consequences to Dudley have been the most appalling. Not only is it a microcosm of the west midlands, but what has happened in the region has happened to its greatest degree in Dudley. Unemployment in the region has increased by between 200 and 300 per cent. since the Government came to power; in my constituency it has increased by more than 400 per cent. Juvenile unemployment used to be the second lowest in the country, but now it is among the highest. The west midlands forum of county councils said in August last year that in the Dudley-Sandwell travel-to-work area the increase in unemployment was greater than anywhere in the West Midlands.
However, even that understates the problems of Dudley. Many in the northern end of the borough, for example, in Coseley and Sedgley, register for unemployment in Wolverhampton, so their figures do not appear in the totals for Dudley and Sandwell. Most families in Dudley have members or close friends who have been thrown pitilessly out of work. No sector of our economy has been spared. The list includes large firms, small firms, men in the prime of their careers, young men wishing to start work, women workers, part-time workers, private sector workers and local authority workers. Wherever one looks, there is terrible devastation. Foundry men, school dinner ladies, lorry drivers, shop workers and bakers—the list is endless—are losing their jobs.
The high unemployment is no accident and has little to do with the world recession. We all know that there is a world recession, but where did it start? It started in Britain as a result of this Government's policies. It is worse here than anywhere else in the industrialised world and it is becoming still worse. We have been told that oil prices should be blamed. I cannot imagine how oil prices can be blamed for a recession in the oil-richest country in Europe.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who I regret is not in the Chamber—

Mr. Stokes: I am here.

Dr. Gilbert: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is a good friend of mine, although we differ politically. He talked about rates, but we have been suffering from a Tory council in Dudley for goodness knows how many years, with some of the lowest rates in the country, and we still have unemployment. Rates have nothing to do with it. Yet another reason adduced by Conservative Members is that unemployment is our fault. It has come upon us in retribution because our workers are lazy, mutinous and hell-bent on the destruction of their jobs. That theme is taken up from time to time by the Prime Minister when she believes that she can get away with it in front of a sycophantic audience. It is the most preposterous allegation ever made by the enemies of the trade unions on the Conservative Benches.
I could echo almost word for word the peroration of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox). He told us that his constituency, like mine, has a loyal and hard-working work force. In the 13 years that I have represented Dudley we have had no major strikes. Firm after firm, and shop steward after shop steward, could tell us about the good industrial relations there. One can ask the chamber of commerce, the trade council, large firms or small firms—the answer is always the same. Yet scores of efficient firms have been laid low and thousands of diligent and loyal workers have been thrown into idleness.
We need help in Dudley. The enterprise zone is no solution. I hope that my hon. Friends do not believe that Dudley has purloined jobs from their constituencies as a result of achieving enterprise zone status. If anything, it is an albatross round our necks. Few new jobs are being created, as I have always prophesied. Most of the jobs that have been created are in steel stockholding and not in productive industry. The firms threatened are not other firms in the region but small firms immediately outside the boundaries of the zone.
Above all, Dudley needs a massive infusion of public expenditure to keep men in jobs instead of paying them to be idle. Conservative Members ask, "Where will the money come from?" The answer could not be simpler, and anyone who has studied fifth form economics knows it. There will be a drastic reversal in the torrent of unemployment pay and supplementary benefits into a beneficial flow of income tax payments from those happy to be back at work. Everyone knows that the money will come from there.
We desperately need such public expenditure. I echo many of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). We need new housing. The present housing stock must be repaired so that many thousands of families can have decent living accommodation. We desperately need more medical

facilities and a better sewerage system. We need a better flood control system, because parts of my constituency are flooded regularly each winter and it is high time that something was done about that Victorian relic. We need a new transport system—a black country road route—from the enterprise zone, if it is to produce jobs, giving access from my part of the country to the national motorway system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, we need a serious job training programme, not just for apprentices as he suggested, but for 30, 40 and 50-year-olds. Men should not feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap at the age of 50, although we should be able to offer them earlier retirement if they want it.
Our region has been a region of immigration since the 1930s. The phrase "Get on your bike" was known to us long before the Secretary of State for Employment used it. In the 1930s, people in this country got on their bikes to come to the west midlands to find work. They do so no longer. Instead, the people of Dudley and the other proud boroughs of the black country now turn desperately in every direction to seek work. They have nowhere to go. They have little hope. They pray urgently for the opportunity to bring about the end of a Government who have calmly and indifferently watched such things come to pass.

Mrs. Jill Knight: As I listen to this debate I feel more and more sorry for the Opposition. My heart is beginning to bleed for their predicament. One can see how the situation has come about. I wish that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) would read the polls as carefully as he reads his lines. If he did, he would know that there is no question of a Labour victory at the next general election. One sees exactly how Opposition minds are working: "Gracious, we are in terrible trouble. The polls are down. We may lose Bermondsey. What shall we do? Of course, let's have another debate on unemployment. We had a debate on that subject two weeks ago, but that does not matter." It does not matter that the Opposition were beaten into the ground two weeks ago, and that they will be beaten again today.
One is very sorry to see the charade that is being played out today. I cannot help feeling that it is a little like Tommy Cooper trying to saw a lady in half. The trick is supposed to end with the lady, whole and unscarred, stepping from the cabinet. However, if Tommy Cooper did it, he would either slice her clean through the abdomen, or cut off his own thumb. One can see that happening to the Opposition.
People are not nearly as stupid as Labour Members think they are. We have been told, not once but several times, in the sound and fury that has been generated on the Opposition Benches this afternoon—as Shakespeare said, "signifying nothing"—that this Government are responsible for unemployment in the west midlands. When they say that to people in their constituencies, the answer will come: "Wait a moment, if the Conservatives are responsible for unemployment in the west midlands, who is responsible for it in America or Australia or Canada?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Other Conservatives"'] Not in Canada. In France—a mere stone's throw away, and no doubt a Socialist paradise—Mr. Mitterrand has engineered exactly the same unemployment. There are other countries, too, such as Italy. There is also Germany. [Interruption.] If


hon. Members were to listen, they might learn something. If Germany had not sent out all her itinerant immigrant workers, her unemployment figures would be just as serious as ours.
Some hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), mentioned import penetration. I should have liked to buy a totally British car, but the only British car that met my requirements had a Honda engine. Why is a Honda engine in a British Leyland car? The answer, presumably, is that a decision has been made by those responsible in BL that we cannot produce in this country an engine suitable for that car.

Mr. Denis Howell: Why not buy a Rover?

Mrs. Knight: I cannot afford one.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary listed all the things that had been done for industry in the west midlands. He spoke of the ·1,230 million that this Government made available to British Leyland because they knew that hundreds of small firms in the west midlands were utterly dependent on orders from British Leyland. That act alone will have saved many jobs in the west midlands.
My hon. Friend gave a long list of what has been done. I happen to believe that it is important that so much has been done to help small businesses to start. Many people have jobs because of that help. I sometimes wonder why Labour Members do not try to master what has already been done to help the young unemployed, about whom most of us are extremely worried. Do the Opposition know nothing of the scheme, recently announced, whereby all school leavers will either go to a job or to training? Does that mean nothing? I should have thought that it was worth mentioning.
The help for new technology in our area is crucial. Assistance for projects introducing the new technologies, which are vital if we are to be competitive, is available from the research stage, through the design stage, development and launching of a new commercial project. That is immensely important. I could go on listing the ways in which help has been given, but I shall not do so. It would be infinitely better if everyone tried to help to overcome the serious situation that exists.
The most recent community programme—one of many—interested me considerably. Its aim was to make available 130,000 jobs—temporary jobs admittedly, but jobs none the less—for people who have been out of work for some time. The idea is to produce projects that will help the community as a whole. In common with many of my hon. Friends, I looked at the scheme with great care. I went through the suggestions made, and I thought that, for the Birmingham area, the suggestion for the clearance of canals and footpaths would be of immense value. In fact, Birmingham has more miles of canals than Venice, and many of us are interested in a project of that nature. However, when I wrote to the chief executive of the council, I was told that we could not do that because the unions objected. What a pity. Why should that happen, when this scheme would help some people who had been unemployed for a long time?
It is possible that the west midlands depends more on manufacturing than any other region. The figures show that 40 per cent. of the labour force is in manufacturing, while the national average is only 28 per cent. That is why we have suffered while other parts of Britain have

benefited from the recent consumer boom. Even in the west midlands there was an interesting consumer boom in small shops in the high streets, and more money was spent overall than ever before— £900 million more. But our area needs manufacturing industries, and there is much spare capacity in manufacturing industry in the west midlands.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) talk about the CBI and regional help, but surely the CBI, in common with other business groupings in the west midlands, is not asking for assisted area status. The CBI told me that, and I have no doubt that it has told Labour Members the same thing. The CBI says clearly—how I agree with it—that jobs can only be created by private enterprise. [Interruption.] I cannot believe that the CBI will tell the right hon. Member for Small Heath one thing and me another. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I should put our heads together afterwards. It may help if I read a letter from the CBI. It says:
When this subject was debated on 7 February several. MPs argued that the region should be given some form of assisted area status. It might be helpful, therefore, to know the reasons why the regional CBI, after some debate, came down against this proposal.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mrs. Knight: If the right hon. Gentleman has received a letter which says something completely different, I shall give way.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and others, along with myself, had a two-hour discussion with the CBI. It is completely divided. The younger members present at the meeting wanted assisted area status in order to attract EC grants. It is true that nationally the CBI is against it, but in the west midlands it is divided, and the more intelligent want it.

Mrs. Knight: That will teach me to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Nothing that he said made any difference at all to what I have said because he has acknowledged that the CBI has come down against the idea which is what I was trying to tell the House.
There are three vital points. First, business costs must be reduced and rates comes into that. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) must understand that rates have a great deal to do with industries' costs. We must reduce or abolish the national insurance surcharge and the cost of energy. Secondly, we must reduce unfair competition, a point which has been made and which I only wish to support. Finally, we must increase capital investment in motorways. I regret that we have heard nothing lately about the channel tunnel, which would help the west midlands greatly.
There is no magic solution to the problems, but let us at least acknowledge that there are certain needs that must be met. However, in the final analysis it is the west midlands industries, with their own expertise and application, which will successfully surmount all the problems.

Mr. John Forrester: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) chided Labour Members for choosing this subject for debate and questioned why. The answer is that unemployment is the most important issue in Britain


today. It refuses to go away despite the fact that the Government may wish it to do so. As one famous comedian said—whether it was Tommy Cooper, Eric Morecambe or Ernie Wise I do not know—the Government have to get out of this if they can.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), referring to north Staffordshire, the Stoke travel-to-work area, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Leek, pointed out that in 1979 unemployment was about 4 per cent., which was below the national average, and now it is about 14 per cent., which is slightly above the national average. I appreciate that in the west midlands the rate is over 16·5 per cent., but what is frightening to people in the area is the speed and extent of unemployment in recent years. A recently prosperous and industrial area has now become one of decay and decline with a fear for the future.
Many fear that the official statistics do not tell the whole story. For instance, the pottery industry employs many women who do not pay a full stamp and do not register as unemployed. There are those whose benefit has expired, those on temporary job creation schemes and those who have just despaired of ever finding a job again.
In April 1981 the official figure for those registered as unemployed was 11·3 per cent. in the month that the census figures were taken, and 11·9 per cent. said that they were registering or looking for employment. That was a difference of 735 people against the official figures. Since the Government cooked the way in which the statistics are now presented, we reckon that 1,600 people in the Stoke travel-to-work area are not officially declared as unemployed. That amounts to 30,000 miserable human beings who wonder why their world has fallen apart.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to the fact that the Michelin tyre company has already declared that over 1,000 people will be made redundant in the next two years—another burden on an already hard—pressed area. The Government tell us that after this period of history has passed we shall all be slimmer and fitter than we were before. We fear that British manufacturing industry is really suffering from anorexia nervosa, that it is fading away, and that when the great revival comes—it always seems to be around the next corner but one—there will be insufficient industry and skilled workers to take us towards that promised land.
One side effect of youngsters' difficulty in finding employment in Stoke-on-Trent is that over the past three years another 3 per cent. have decided to stay on at school or to take further education courses. The Department of Education and Science might take note of that when it asks the county council to cut its education budget. We should have incentives other than a depression to encourage young people to stay on at school, which is a desirable objective anyway.
Many people say that there is no point in training for specific jobs if there is no employment for them. However, I suggest that training opportunities should be increased rather than reduced. Anybody who is skilled by hand or brain will be more likely to be retrainable for some other job in future than someone who is unskilled. Britain cannot afford a whole generation of unskilled people with no training at all if we are to face the future with any confidence.
The Government often point to the fall in inflation. That is the great panacea. They never remind us that they were responsible for fuelling inflation when they took office in 1979. What a different story it would have been if the nation had followed the Labour Government's pleas for moderation, and if they had also followed sensible policies. Perhaps we would not then be in our present state.
In addition, we have had high interest rates, a high pound—fortunately that is falling now—and the national insurance surcharge. But, worst of all for the Potteries, the Government have put a tax on gas. For an industry which is a high user of that fuel, that was a crippling imposition. Apart from reducing the national insurance surcharge and bringing down interest rates, the Government should have an energy policy to help British industry.
The result of Government policies is that many firms in north Staffordshire have gone out of business, despite the fact that for over 100 years they have been able to weather all the depressions that have come along. Indeed, it looks as though they have closed their gates for good. There is a fear that a fundamental change is taking place in north Staffordshire and in the west midlands generally—that the old traditional industries will never return to employing the same number of people as they employed in the past. Since the war, Stoke has seen a dramatic drop in the number of people employed in the mining industry, and there has been a steady decline in the number of people employed in the pottery industry. Despite what the Minister said, the Government should look again at their regional policies and consider whether assistance is being given to the right people in the right places.
I was interested to hear what was said about money from the EC, but I have been waiting a long time to see any of that money coming into Stoke-on-Trent. I hope that the Minister's statement will give us some hope for the future, but we shall believe it when we see it. We must not allow the west midlands and north Staffordshire to become deserts of the deindustrialisation revolution that appears to be taking place at the moment.
Successive Governments have positively discouraged other industries from coming to places, such as north Staffordshire, where there were prosperous industries, as the pottery industry once was, so that those other industries would not take labour from existing industry. If the areas satisfied the Government of the day at that time, the Government now have a responsibility to assist, financially or otherwise, with diversification of industry.
The pottery industry has all the virtues that the Government say are ideal to take the United Kingdom out of the recession. It has hard working operatives, high productivity, and moderation in wage demands. It has not had a national strike this century, yet it is struggling for existence. Why? If the pottery industry cannot survive in this position, what hope can the Government give us? When the rest of the country has all the virtues of the pottery industry, the recession will be well and truly over.
The pottery industry in the west midlands must not perish. If the Government cannot alter the position, they must make a way for a Government who can.
The Government must take action on the problem of cheap subsidised foreign imports and imitations. The Government must not stand idly by. Their friends in the CBI and those in the trade union movement are pressing them for action. Industries in this country—certainly the


pottery industry—can and must live with fair competition, but they cannot compete with dumping and dubious practices. If dumping and dubious practices come from the European Community, that is all the more reason for the Government to take immediate action. The Government have the power to create real jobs and to put people to work on socially useful assets for the future. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seize that opportunity next month.
The Government may take satisfaction from the national opinion polls, but they cannot take any comfort from the fact that there are now two nations—the midlands and the north versus the south. Hon. Members must ask themselves how long a nation of this size can survive such a division within its society.
Neither north Staffordshire nor the west midlands want charity. We have a long tradition of hard work, moderation, skill, dedication, and pride in the products that we manufacture. We want the Government to give this area the opportunity to use those gifts so that we can continue to make our contribution to society.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is a pleasure to follow my county colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester), although I have a different tale to tell.
No one in Britain can pretend that unemployment in the west midlands is other than bad. That is beyond dispute. Unemployment is especially bad in this region for a variety of reasons, on some of which we can all agree, such as the recession in the car industry following the rise in oil prices. Naturally, the Opposition are bursting every sinew to blame the Government for everything. Do they imagine that the people do not see what they are up to? The more blame they heap on the Government the less blame they hope they will reap for themselves after years of restrictive practices which have been encouraged and given the force of law by Labour Governments. Now they have a vested interest in gloom. They believe that if they continue blaming the Government long enough and loud enough people will vote Labour at the next election.

Mr. Snape: We shall see.

Mr. Lawrence: What a hope! With such a massive lead in the public opinion polls, people have shown a marked resistance to being taken in. Since this series of debates on unemployment, the national opinion polls have been giving the Government an even greater lead. Unhappily for the west midlands, the more gloom and despondency that the Opposition spread the worse the situation gets. "If everything is so rotten in the west midlands," potential investors will say, "then that is the last place we wish to go to." The slower the recovery will be and the longer will be the dole queues. The position is bad, but there is no point in making it worse. It would get better if we highlighted the good points and not the bad points.
So I will try to offset some of the miseries. I will not spend time on the lengthening catalogue of useful actions that the Government have taken, such as the reduction in the rate of inflation from 22 to 5 per cent. It is an undoubted fact that those firms still in existence are better able to meet competition because of Government policies

over the past three years than they would have been, I will cheer everyone up a little by talking about Burton-on-Trent and the constituency of Burton.
We have bad unemployment, but it is better than nearly everywhere else in the west midlands. While the west midlands has 16 per cent. and the national average is 13·5 per cent. Burton has 9 per cent., which is 7 per cent. better than its region. Why is it so much better, despite many of the same problems that everyone else is facing'?

Mr. Terry Davis: Look at what happened to the Birmingham breweries.

Mr. Lawrence: That is part of it. If I outline six reasons it may give helpful pointers to other areas in the future.
The first reason is the diversity of industries. We have brewing, engineering, tyres, plastics, agricultural machinery, iron foundries, food, construction, glass, agriculture and service industries. Perhaps none of that will help other towns and cities immediately, but there may be a lesson for us all to learn. That lesson is diversity. If we diversify businesses and spread them throughout our towns and cities, the large and dying industries will be replaced by a diversity of activities which will be less disastrously affected by future economic downturns.
Secondly, Burton has good industrial relations. There may be a moral in the relatively low proportion of closed shop trade unionisation in Burton. Nevertheless, the wages earned are among the highest. Even where the unions are strong, a good relationship tends to exist between employers and work force. The main area of conflict is often between the trade unions' paid officials and their members, who get very angry at being kicked around in breach of democratic procedures and suffer the infringement of their reasonable civil liberties. The number of strikes and disruptions in Burton is very low. Nothing attracts support in lean times as much as a dependable work force. One industry that I am trying to attract to Burton from abroad is interested in that factor above all others.
Thirdly, Burton has the advantage that management not only values good relationships with its work force, encouraged by an open door policy to the manager's office and profit sharing, but is prepared to get off its backside and sell in the world markets and to compete energetically. The factories that are weathering the world economic storm are all fighting in the world for business. They are firms such as Adams, the biscuit makers, setting up its stall for the first time in the United States of America, Robert Mortons, the brewery engineering firm, exporting an entire brewery to the United States of America and whose brewing industry support has secured five major contracts, one of which is in Canada, Everards, the brewers, who are setting up with Morton equipment to produce "Penguin Bitter" in the Falkland islands, JCB, the excavator company, introducing a complete new range of products at the height of the recession and improving its export potential, and the small workers co-operatives in the glass industry in Tutbury resurrected from the ashes of a larger closed factory.
There is a refusal in Burton construction companies to accept defeat and their order books are beginning to revive. Companies like Robirch, in the food industry, are beginning to expand their operations. This is management at its most dynamic. It is an example to everyone.
Fourthly, there is active encouragement for businesses from the East Staffordshire district council. It has consistently, under Conservative control, held its rates below the level of its neighbours, and this year hopes to reduce the rates. It is a local authority that has made sites available for small businesses with little or no grant help from the Government. It has negotiated construction contracts with local developers that are an example of cooperation working to everyone's benefit. The key to the district council's activities has been the increased capital investment while the current account has been painfully brought under control.
Fifthly, there is a very active chamber of commerce and industry in Burton, which works ceaselessly to advise members on how best to brave the chill winds, and to plan constructively for the future and to help with mutual assistance.
Finally, the farming industry's output and efficiency—both locally in Burton and nationally—are second to none.
Any Member of Parliament would be proud of this industrial area. I could go on listing the achievements of Burton-upon-Trent and the district. There is optimism in Burton, and its Member of Parliament refuses to talk down that optimism and achievement. The world recession will come to an end, and when it does Burton companies will be found to be competing successfully in the world. So the message from Burton industry to the Government is clear. It is, "Keep it up. Though your medicine is sometimes painful, your policies are right. For goodness sake stick to them, though be careful what you do to us in the Budget." And the message that Burton sends to the people of Britain is, "For goodness sake keep drinking our beer. It is the best there is."

Mr. John Spellar: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that the Opposition Benches had an air of frustration. They certainly do because we believe that, if there is a further period of Conservative Government, there will be very little industry left in the west midlands. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that the Minister of State, Department of Employment gave on Friday about unemployment in the area and about the Northfield jobcentre. In May 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, there were 2,701 unemployed people registered at the Northfield jobcentre. In January 1983, the new, revised, "sanitised for your protection" figure was 10,079. That is the difference. It is not—as the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) said—that the trend is inevitable, whatever the Government. Under this Government, there has been a dramatic increase in unemployment.
In the Birmingham travel-to-work area there has been an increase in the number of unemployed from 40,000 in May 1979 to 113,000 in May 1982. In the vehicle industry, the figures are even worse. In May 1979, 2,521 people were unemployed. In May 1982 that figure had risen to 11,717. Heaven knows what the figure is now. According to the redundancy notices issued through the Department of Employment during the past year for the Austin Rover Longbridge plant, the figures are 1,500, 1,000, 600 and, for last year, 3,100. That is just one of the car plants in the Birmingham area.
Birmingham and the west midlands now have the worst unemployment to vacancy ratio in Great Britain. In the United Kingdom, only Northern Ireland's ratio is worse. I suppose that it is fairly easy to understand the rather sanguine attitude of the Under-Secretaries of State. One of them represents a constituency in East Anglia which has the second best unemployment to vacancy ratio. The constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), was No. 464 in the unemployment league table. The constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), is No. 517 in the unemployment league table. Perhaps their consciences are a little easier about what is happening than the consciences of those who represent constituencies that are among the top 100 or 150. The situation is rapidly becoming worse.
The figures that I have given are reflected in the Longbridge plant in my constituency. In 1979, there were 19,000 manual workers, but that figure is now down to 10,000, and the figures are becoming worse. In the time available, I shall concentrate on the car industry, in particular BL, because of its major impact on my constituency and because its fate and that of the car industry is inextricably bound with the industries that have been mentioned tonight and with west midlands constituencies. Many of the firms mentioned depend heavily on BL. Therefore, we need to know the Government's and the management's intentions for BL. In some ways, we can only speculate, because the Government have built a wall of silence round themselves on the question of BL.
In the House a few weeks ago both the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) and I asked the Minister when he would publish the BL corporate plan. In a written question on Friday I repeated that question. The only answer that we receive is that the Minister will be presenting it some time. Why is he delaying? Why is there a gap in the Government's expenditure estimates against British Leyland? Why is there no figure for that? Is it because concerted negotiations are going on and because the Government are putting pressure on BL to take decisions that may be detrimental to the company? Are the Government putting pressure on BL? Are they saying that they will not give the company money in future, or even money already accounted for, unless it sells off Jaguar, Land Rover and special products, and breaks up the corporation?
Are the Government saying that BL cannot have the finance unless it accepts a financial straitjacket that will make it artificially profitable? I say "artificially" because, with one or two Japanese exceptions, all the world's car manufacturers are making heavy losses. They are not generating enough internal financing to invest for the future. All the major corporations admit that there is an important world problem. Are the Government trying to force BL into short-term financial profitability so that the balance sheet looks right and the sharks in the City will feel able to invest? Is that the way in which the Government are negotiating with BL?
What is the Government's view about the manufacture of components? Do they see BL merely as an assembler of components, which are possibly British or Possibly —a fear raised by hon. Members on both sides—foreign imports? The figure quoted is possibly up to 20 or 30 per cent. Hon Members should consider the impact of that on


the west midlands. Is it the Government's policy that BL should be mainly an assembler and that engine and gearbox manufacture, as well as the manufacture of other components, should stop, with the major threat that that poses in particular to the Longbridge plant? The Longbridge plant is not only an assembly plant, but a manufacturing plant. What negotiations and discussions have the Government and BL held with other manufacturers, particularly Honda? What is the nature of the deal? What will it mean for the components industry? The workers in British Leyland and those in the components industry have a right to know.
What will the company and the Government do about the introduction of vitally needed new models, particularly in relation to the Longbridge complex? I do not want to set up an artificial dispute between Longbridge and Cowley, but the LM 10 and the LM 11 are going to Cowley. BL has announced that the XX will go to Cowley. What is the Government's views about the future of the Longbridge complex? Will they tell us before the general election, or are they keeping quiet until afterwards?
Will the Government lift the veil from that hidden figure in the expenditure survey and say what they will put in in terms of vitally needed investment for the future of BL? Do they want BL run down to a small-scale assembler, with possibly a luxury division that is soon to be sold off, or do they want BL to stay in the major league, possibly through a merger? We need clear answers.
We also want more general answers from the Government on the vehicle industry. What do they propose to do about increasing demand? What do they propose to do about cutting the excess tax on vehicle sales? What will the Government do to protect us against rampant and unfair foreign competition? During the Northfield by-election a Minister said that the control of Spanish imports was
firmly in the action file.
We see precious little Government action on anything, but in this instance there has been no action five months later, despite the fact that the issue is vital. Spanish imports are only one of the unfair imports to enter Britain, whether they come from Korea, Eastern Europe, South Africa or Australia. There is a great list that adds up to hundreds and thousands of jobs in the car assembly and motor industry.
Therefore, we want confidence to be restored in the industry. We want investment not only in manufacture, but in research and design. The uncertainty that hangs over the car and components industry in the west midlands should be removed. That should happen before the general election. Otherwise, the doubt, fear and uncertainty will continue. Tens of thousands of jobs, the lives of tens of thousands of families and the industrial future of the west midlands are dependent on the nature of the reply by the Government tonight.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: No one can say that things are well in the west midlands. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed unhappiness and anxiety about the way in which things have turned out. The concern has not been well served by the motion proposed by the Opposition. It is a silly motion, because it is not true. That is perceived by many people in the west midlands, as is evident from poll after poll. The people recognise that something deeply disturbing has happened to the structural arrangements of employment

within the west midlands. They know that this goes back many years and that the causes are not easy to remedy rapidly. They do not lay the blame for the long structural decline at the feet of this Government, but they think that certain things might be done to assist recovery.
The observation has been made that we do not always buy cars from manufacturers within the west midlands. It is difficult to direct free people to purchase goods at certain places when there is an open market. To insist upon a certain quota of imported cars or of components assembled here may mean more uneconomic cars. Commercial firms use their judgment to buy as best they can so that their end product is as cheap and competitive as possible. If quotas or special arrangements are sought for a proportion of the car industry it may lead to the further decline of that industry.
All the time in my constituency I am being asked whether we could do more. The answer has to be yes. A tight monetary policy may exacerbate recession. One of the largely unfair criticisms that I hear about the Government is that they do not seem to be sympathetic and that they have ignored some of the problems inherent in the west midlands. That observation was made forcefully to me last Friday by an intelligent convener at one of my most important factories. If the Government could demonstrate a more positive and perhaps more sympathetic approach, it would be much appreciated.
This is happening to some extent. In Walsall we are delighted that at long last we have become a designated district. There is much evidence that we should have designated long ago.
Almost every hon. Member has referred to the rating problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has harassed the Government about void rating. Because of its inheritance through mismanagement by a former Left-wing Socialist council, Walsall has an awful problem about how to reallocate its resources. If it were to lift the burden on industrial premises it would have to impose a great burden on domestic ratepayers, which would be invidious
In the rating area of the West Midlands county council much work has been done by the west midlands ratepayers federation, which is representative of all political parties. It is alarmed about the spending policies of West Midlands county council. The chairman of the ratepayers federation, Tony Jarvis, who is a resident of Aldridge, has ably pursued this issue. There would be wide common cause to abolish West Midlands county council. The Government should give serious consideration to that proposition.
In regard to investment, the convener who I saw last Friday argued strongly that the position in his company had been brought about by a lack of investment in good years. That reflects all too often the pattern of investment, particularly in firms which have grown from family firms into larger concerns. In good years they did not return to their factories the investment that they should have done. That has rendered us less competitive. There is a good work force and good labour relations. Labour relations have improved since 1980. There is also much tougher management. But industry is using equipment that is grotesquely out of date in some instances, which puts it at a severe disadvantage in comparison with its competitors. Therefore, I urge the Government to look favourably at proposals for new investment in capital and equipment under the industrial legislation.
Energy cost have been touched upon by most hon. Members, as they are in many of these debates. We have not yet got energy costs right. We are still at a disadvantage. I urge the Government to do what they can about energy costs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) referred to dumping. The inequality of tariff arrangements such as those that operate in Spain are intolerable and unacceptable. People do not understand why the Government are not moving faster on that score.
A working party is examining the idea of free ports. I have some knowledge of the success and tremendous stimulation to the economy of southern Florida resulting from free port status for Miami. I understand that the Government are thinking of coastal or near coastal towns. There would be a tremendous boost to the west midlands' economy if a free port were sited there, perhaps at the west midlands airport. This would enable us to process and forward goods through our region instead of their being dealt with in what we regard as more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom.
If the question is raised whether there is hope, certainly there is, and there are signs of it already. I am glad that the pound has settled at its present level. I should not mind if it were a little lower. Some people say that is a short-term argument, but it is an observable fact—a loathsome expression—that with a lower pound the demand for sterling-priced exports grows in dollar terms. Therefore, we see small signs of an increase in United States dollar orders. Because of the decline of the pound against the mark, there is also an increase in my constituency of German orders. I am sure that the same thing is happening throughout the economy.

Mr. Peter Snape: Inevitably, because of the pressures on the time available for the debate, the winding-up speeches of both myself and the Minister will be truncated. It is right to point out immediately that the purpose of the debate was not, as some hon. Members seem to think, merely to score political points, although in all seriousness and honesty many genuine, relevant political and economic points could well be scored against the Government because of their policies and the impact of those policies on the west midlands over the past three years.
We were dealt rather a blow in the opening sentence of the Minister's speech, because he made it clear that there would be no change in the Government's regional policy on the west midlands before the general election. There are differences of opinion among various groups in the west midlands about the desirability of the area receiving assisted area status. However, more and more people are coming round to the view expressed by my hon. Friends and by the west midlands Labour party generally that without such status the inevitable decline that we have seen over the past three years will accelerate.
Even newspapers that one does not normally associate with support for the party to which I have the honour to belong say that there is a good case for the region to receive assisted area status following the decline of industry in the area, particularly since 1979. As recently as last night, my local newspaper, the Sandwell Evening Mail, in an editorial dealing with the manner in which the

Department of the Environment had misled my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) on European grants, concluded by saying:
If necessary, Sandwell borough
—in which my constituency lies—
should be given assisted area status that would qualify it for aid
—that is European aid. The editorial went on to say:
In fact, there is a very strong case for making the whole of the West Midlands an assisted area. Over to you Mr. King." That is what a prominent newspaper, which at least editorially has traditionally supported the Conservative party, feels.
The manner in which the Minister dashed our hopes shows that the economic revival of the region is unlikely to take place under the present Government. The Minister, like most of his hon. Friends, had a ritualistic dig at the West Midlands county council. I am always surprised—I should not be—at the constant and non-stop hypocrisy of the Tory party. One would think that the Conservatives had been the great opponents of the creation of the West Midlands county council in the first place.
I remind the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the Minister that it was the Labour party that opposed the creation of metropolitan county councils in the early 1970s. Most of those who now complain about the budget dutifully trooped through the Lobby to support the creation of that authority. They will no doubt dutifully troop through the Lobby tonight to support their Government, despite the disasters that the policies of that Government have brought on the west midlands.
All my hon. Friends representing the west midlands are in favour of the cheaper public transport policies of the West Midlands county council. We are also much in favour of the public consultation exercise that the county council has carried out in respect of those policies. I have received 500 leaflets back from people in West Bromwich saying that they want better and cheaper public transport. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) complains about the cost of the initial exercise. The fact that over 500 people in my constituency have been prepared to spend money on a stamp, to address the envelope and, in many cases, to include a letter, shows the popularity of such a policy. It demonstrates why the West Midlands county council was won heavily by the Labour party at the last county council elections.
The motion mentions certain industries in the region. I should like to refer to most of those industries by name. I start with the foundry industry, which has long been regarded as the industrial bedrock, if that is the right term, of the black country and the borough of Sandwell. The industry has inevitably suffered financial losses and reductions of manpower over the years through the acceptance of modern working practices and changes in those practices. The loss of manpower that occurred during the 1970s came about with the full co-operation of the much-maligned trade unions that have been mentioned today.
A different approach to the foundry industry has been adopted by the present Government. The latter-day Luddites wear pinstripe suits and work for merchant bankers. At firms like F. H. Lloyd and others throughout the west midlands it is now policy, aided and abetted by the Government, to rip out machinery and smash it up to guarantee that foundry production ceases on the site. If the


Government had fought the 1979 general election more honestly, they would have pointed out to the people of the west midlands that a vote for the Conservative party was a vote not only for unemployment but to smash up the machinery that would have helped Britain to move forward and out of recession in the 1980s. That is what is happening in the foundry industry under present policies.
There are various aspects of aid and assistance to this vital industry that the Government have not even bothered to consider. They could have examined the vexed question of the control of imports of foreign castings. However, import controls are regarded as anathema by the Government. They believe in fair trading. Where is the fairness in expecting the British foundry industry to compete with foundries in western Europe alone where energy costs, on average, in most of those countries are anything up to 20 per cent. cheaper?
Conservative Members have complained about energy costs. They must think that Opposition Members have short memories or that the public are totally unaware of the events of the past four years. Was it not this Government who insisted that the nationalised energy boards should put up their prices—to double them, in fact, in the first 18 months—to ensure that the Treasury, as they put it, would have a better return on capital? Had not Conservative Members considered the impact that the doubling of prices would have on British industry in general and on the foundry industry in particular? Have those hon. Members any right to come to the House and complain about the pricing policies of nationalised industries when they presumably voted for those policies, again as dutifully as they will vote at seven o'clock tonight for the strangulation of the west midlands economy? It is pointless coming to the House to complain about energy prices if one supports a Government who, deliberately and as a matter of policy, have gone out to double those prices in their first two years of office.
There are other actions that the Government could take to help this hard-pressed industry. There has been reference to the need for the abolition of the 10 per cent. car tax. The foundry industry depends heavily on motor car sales within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends and myself are united in the belief that there is need for far greater public expenditure on roads, railways and the sewerage system. These are major public works that will have to take place in the 1980s. To put them off only means that when the day comes when they have to be done the cost will be even greater than if the process had been started five years earlier. It is the economics of the madhouse to waste the massive revenues from North Sea oil to keep people standing around in the dole queues. That is what the Government are doing. It is one of the reasons why the foundry industry, like many others, finds itself in its present state.
The motion mentions machine tools. This reveals a sad decline for a nation that once led the world in the production of sophisticated machine tools. Import penetration has increased from 28 per cent. in 1970 to over 50 per cent. in 1981. The concentration of the British machine tool industry in the 1970s on comparatively low technology machinery—the lathes, the drills, the milling machines and the grinders—has meant that another world lead has been frittered away. It cannot be blamed on the trade unions. The management decisions, the takeovers, the disinvestment and the so-called rationalisation that took place in the 1970s are having their impact in the

1980s. In the short term, the Government should provide research and development investment funds for this vital industry if it is to compete properly in the 1980s.
The motion also mentions engineering. A great deal has been heard about the start of new businesses in the west midlands. However, little has been heard from the Conservative Benches about the record bankruptcies in other sectors.

Mr. Denis Howell: They amount to 230 a month.

Mr. Snape: As my right hon. Friend says, they amount to 230 a month, many in the small engineering industry. Without an economic upturn and a change in economic policy, there is little hope.
Car components are mentioned in the motion. I do not think that even the Minister, from the industrial heartlands of Eye, will disagree that the British car components industry is suffering. Without a change in the managerial philosophies in companies such as F. H. Lucas and Dunlop, the decline in the British car component industry will continue. The recruiting abroad by companies such as F. H. Lucas, while sacking workers in this country, does not strike me as patriotism, although I have no doubt that there is a portrait of Her Majesty in its boardroom. For companies such as Dunlop to export their technology and our jobs to China—to name but one country—does not bode well for the future of the British car component industry. We need action from the Government.
There are currently 57 people unemployed for every vacancy in the west midlands. No Conservative Member mentioned the impact that the Government's economic policies have had and will have on the region. In its report published earlier this year the Cambridge economic unit suggested that if present policies were continued to the end of the decade—heaven forbid—unemployment in the west midlands region would be 21·9 per cent. I dare say that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister will still be grinning when that happens, but I hope that the people of the west midlands will realise the con trick pulled on them in 1979. Whatever else they voted for, my constituency did not vote for 28,600 people to be on the dole. They did not vote for the Dudley and Sandwell area unemployment figures to be up 271·8 per cent. since polling day in 1979. The posters in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself which said, "Labour is not working" in 1979 would not need actors to set the same scene in 1983.
Despite the sniggers of Conservative Members, those of us in the west midlands are looking forward to the next general election with a bit more enthusiasm than some of them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): Many points have been raised, and I have even less time than I was promised originally to deal with them. I shall seek to answer them as quickly as I can.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised the fundamental matter of unfair competition, and I believe that that is one of the subjects that we should cover. We must make the distinction between unfair competition and proper competition that we fail to meet. It is a distinction that it ill behoves us to miss.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pottery industry and said that there is considerable unfair


competition from both Spain and Italy. We have sought to meet those complaints. We are preparing a major criticism and seeking to deal with the valid case that has been made about Spanish dumping. So far, no case has been made about Italian dumping. If the right hon. Gentleman can provide the evidence from the people whom he says have talked to him about it, we shall take up the matter immediately and deal with it.
We believe that competition must be fair. We should look, therefore, at the points made about counterfeiting. There has been a considerable amount of counterfeiting of British goods throughout the world, and we must meet the problem. That is why we have, for the first time, set up a major anti-counterfeiting unit in the Department of Trade to deal only with this problem.
One of the matters to which we can point—not as a direct result of that, but as part of the movement in the world—is the strict new legislation that the Taiwanese authorities have introduced. We look to the Taiwanese authorities to stop the counterfeiting that has gone on there, about which we are anxious, by careful monitoring.
I do not believe that we meet the problems of unemployment or industrial decline in the west midlands by using expressions that make the position not just worse, but alter its terms. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) should have been a little more careful about the figures he used. He managed to give the impression that 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the young people in his constituency were unemployed. He was including all those who were still at school and in further education—[Interruption.] Before Opposition Members shout, the point that they make so often is that the Government are not prepared to meet each point as we go along. I am trying to do that.
It was also rather curious of the right hon. Member for Small Heath to complain about the 11 per cent. penetration of Japanese car imports, as if there were no Japanese car imports when he was a Minister in the Labour Government. It is curious behaviour to use any statistic that suits the argument rather than statistics—

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way, because I have only four minutes in which to speak. When the right hon. Gentleman reads his speech, he will see that what I have said is correct.

Mr. Howell: The Minister is wrong. I checked my figures this morning.

Mr. Gummer: It is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement that undermines the west midlands case. Its case surely is that it was and ought to be the power-house of British industry and be able to compete thoughout the world. We want to enable it to regain that status. It is already, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, an important exporting area.
What does the right hon. Member for Small Heath say? He says that we must control imports of manufactures. He bases that upon the argument that we already have an excess of manufactured imports over our manufactured goods. He is wrong. He is £1,500 million wrong on the figures for the first nine months of last year—the latest

figures that we have. The right hon. Gentleman must not put forward any old figures to support an insupportable case.
The hon. Member for West Bromich, West (Miss Boothroyd) made some creative proposals. I shall miss out the first four minutes of her speech, which I felt was uncharacteristic. The characteristic part suggested that the problem of the European Community and its investment of the social fund should be looked at seriously. The Government have constantly said that they want the social fund to extend the degree to which it puts its aid where it is needed in specific areas. We have fought for that, and when the Commission produced its proposals in October 1982 we supported them wholeheartedly. We have pressed hard for the negotiations to continue. The proposals will come before the Council of Ministers in June this year, and we hope that it will be possible—

Miss Boothroyd: It has already been before the Select Committee.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we must have the support of all the countries within the Community. No country would suggest that we have done other than act as fast as possible. We are pressing this matter as fast as we can. We fully support the points that she has made.
It does not help when dealing with such matters to avoid the facts. It is worth remembering that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry pointed out that the regional development grant for the whole country amounted to £1,870 million since the Government came into office. The majority of that went to the west midlands. We gave British Leyland £1,230 million. It cannot be said that the west midlands has not received a considerable amount. Compared with regional grants, the west midlands has received more than many of the assisted areas merely by the amount that goes to British Leyland.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) is not here, and I understand why, but he made the most amazing statement. He said that the Conservative Government were responsible not just for everything that went wrong in the west midlands, but for the world slump. It is an economic argument which has not been heard before. Not even the Cambridge economy unit has come up with that before.
According to the right hon. Gentleman the British Government are so powerful, so remarkable and so central that they have caused the world slump. With that one remarkable statement, the right hon. Gentleman put out of court everything else that he said.
The only case put forward by the Opposition against the Government's policy for the regeneration of British industry is the worst mixture imaginable. The ingredients are simple. The first—import controls—would result in massive retaliation and hit the west midlands worse than any other part of the country. The second—to remove Britain from the EC—would result in the largest disinvestment in our history. The third—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Shadow Chief Whip to complain, but it was the Opposition who took the extra time and therefore took time from me. I intend to complete what I have to say.
The third suggestion is that we should tax successful industries in the west midlands to raise vast sums for bad local councils to spend. If the Opposition want to help the


west midlands, the first thing that they should do is to ensure that west midlands local government stops the tax on jobs that the West Midlands county council imposes with every increased rate demand.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 301.

Division No. 75]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
English, Michael


Adams, Allen
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Fitch, Alan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ford, Ben


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Freud, Clement


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ginsburg, David


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Golding, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Campbell, Ian
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Neil
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Holland, S. (L'b'th. Vauxh'Il)


Cartwright, John
Homewood, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hooley, Frank


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Horam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cohen, Stanley
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Hon Greville


Cook, Robin F.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cowans, Harry
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
John, Brynmor


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Lambie, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Leadbitter, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Leighton, Ronald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dubs, Alfred
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dunnett, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McNally, Thomas


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McNamara, Kevin





McTaggart, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


McWilliam, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Silverman, Julius


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Snape, Peter


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Strang, Gavin


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Straw, Jack


Newens, Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Park, George
Torney, Tom


Parker, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Parry, Robert
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Penhaligon, David
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Pitt, William Henry
Wardell, Gareth


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Watkins, David


Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wellbeloved, James


Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


Radice, Giles
White, Frank R.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Richardson, Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Roper, John
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ryman, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sandelson, Neville



Sever, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. George Morton.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Brotherton, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Budgen, Nick


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Butcher, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)






Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cope, John
Heddle, John


Corrie, John
Henderson, Barry


Costain, Sir Albert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, James


Critchley, Julian
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Hordern, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Denshore
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Durant, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dykes, Hugh
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Eggar, Tim
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Elliott, Sir William
Jessel, Toby


Emery, Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Farr, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fell, Sir Anthony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knight, Mrs Jill


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lang, Ian


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Loveridge, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Gorst, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Gow, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Grant, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
McQuarrie, Albert


Greenway, Harry
Madel, David


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Major, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marlow, Antony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A.
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Hastings, Stephen
Mellor, David





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Moore, John
Squire, Robin


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stainton, Keith


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Murphy, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Myles, David
Stevens, Martin


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, A(E Renfrewshire)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Peter


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Donald


Parris, Matthew
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, John (Oxford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Percival, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry
Waddington, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Walters, Dennis


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watson, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Carol Mather and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Unemployment (Yorkshire and Humberside)

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate, I must tell the House that it was a great help in the last debate when hon. Members imposed upon themselves a time limit of 10 minutes, which enabled the Chair to call many more hon. Members than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have resulted in distressingly high unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside, where unemploy-ment is rising faster than the national average; is concerned at the demoralising effects on those unemployed persons who are suffering indignity, misery and family unhappiness as they strive to live; furthermore finds it disturbing that the numbers of unemployed school leavers and long-term unemployed are increasing with no hope and no future; recognises and deplores that the regions' major industries of steel, textiles, fishing and manufacturing have declined disastrously and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action to remedy this decline and regenerate the Yorkshire and Humberside Region.
No one can doubt the gloom about unemployment that hangs over the nation. Anyone visiting Sheffield, Hull, Mexborough, Scunthorpe or Rotherham will see the rundown, dilapidated industries, the factory shells and the rotting trawlers on Humberside. They will see people of all ages, including able-bodied men, wearily searching for work. More and more of them are poorly dressed. The heart has been knocked out of them because they have no jobs and no hope. A decaying environment is growing in some of the towns.
The national employment picture is the worst in memory, and getting worse. Unemployment jumped again in January by 128,000 —an all-time record. Registered and unregistered unemployed are at least 4 million, and the underlying rise still strong. Unbelievably, the Government's spending plans assume that unemployment will rise by another 350,000 in the next financial year.
Manufacturing output fell last November to its lowest for 16 years —one fifth below what the Government inherited in 1979. Investment in manufacturing is only two thirds of the level of four years ago. Surveys show that businesses plan to cut investment even further. The CBI survey shows that 50 per cent. of firms expect to employ fewer people in the next four months, while only 5 per cent. expect to employ more. Companies are still closing plants and cutting jobs at an alarming rate. Indeed, the CBI estimates that manufacturing employment will continue to fall by 22,000 to 23,000 jobs per month. With the January figures showing such a sharp upturn, that kills any speculation that economic recovery is on the way.
Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been publicly critical of Government policy, stating that if there were no change in policy there would be continuing weak economic growth during the next 18 months. It advised that there should be some relaxation of fiscal policy by lowering business costs and increasing public capital spending. So much for the gloomy national scene in which we must operate and live as a region.
There is the oft-quoted phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago, that the recession was bottoming out. Some bottom —in Yorkshire and Humberside it is a

bottomless pit. We contend that the economic imbalance between the relatively unproductive south and the vast industrial regions of the north must change. The patterns of unemployment and national misery and suffering are not part of a patchwork quilt. It is the north versus the south —the relatively contented south and the discontented north. The regional employment figures prove that, as do the political opinion polls.
It is a tragic reflection on the Government's policies that the Yorkshire and Humberside region—a basically rich region with all the skills of agriculture, fishing, coal, steel and textiles—has been shattered in such a short time. We do not want to languish in the economic slough and ruin of the Government's policies. We want an economically strong region, able to produce the maximum wealth from its resources for the benefit of the nation. Yet only the coal industry has survived with any real strength. Investment has been the key, from which the increases in productivity, output and new pits have helped to keep the industry alive.
Yorkshire would have been in economic ruin if the coal industry had suffered the same fate as the steel industry, bearing in mind the thousands of manufacturing and service jobs dependent on it. Even so, 2,229 jobs have been lost in coal during the past four years in Yorkshire. Goodness knows what will happen if a MacGregor type becomes chairman of the National Coal Board. That will affect not only the pits. There will be a wave of factory closures and redundancies around every coal mine closure, leaving derelict mining communities in its wake. I hope that, for the sake of the industry, the men in it and the many mining villages, that does not come to pass.
Four years ago our regional unemployment figure was 88,000. Today, including school leavers both registered and unregistered, it stands at nearly 303,000—an unbelievable and colossal increase. What is distressing is that we are outstripping the national average, and the trend is becoming worse. The gap between Yorkshire and the nation is widening still further. Our people are continuing to bear a disproportionate burden of the suffering with each passing day that the Government's policies are in force—another man loses his job; another family is condemned to suffering and indignity; more dreams and aspirations are snuffed out of existence. Despite the great wealth of our natural resources, and the hardy Yorkshire spirit, hope is a commodity in scarce supply. Four years of suffering have taken their toll.
In south Yorkshire, covering the travel-to-work areas of Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, the number of unemployed has risen from 34,367 to 96,380. That is 16·4 per cent., which is well above the national average. It is a threefold increase in four years. I am amazed that our social fabric has withstood such a shuddering fall in employment. The steel industry has borne the brunt—it has suffered nearly 31,000 job losses in four years. Steel towns have been sickened by a series of closures. In the same four-year period, male unemployment has risen from 6·5 per cent. to 17·7 per cent. and female unemployment has risen from 3·8 per cent. to 9·6 per cent. That reflects a serious fall in employment in the textile and allied industries in west Yorkshire. Huddersfield, Halifax, Keighley and Bradford have been crippled.
The fishing industry has suffered, especially Hull but Grimsby too. I refer only to registered fishermen and processors. Since 1979, Hull has lost 4,056 jobs and


Grimsby 1,415 jobs. Therefore, 5,471 jobs have been lost in the Humber estuary alone. As yet, there has been no industrial replacement, and so it goes on. There is now only one vacancy for every 85 claimants in south Yorkshire.
The picture is worsened by the fact that regional development grant to Yorkshire and Humberside has declined as a percentage of the total that is awarded to Great Britain. In 1978–79, grant for plant, machinery and buildings represented 13·8 per cent. of Great Britain's total. In 1980–81, it was down to 12·6 per cent. The tale with regional selective assistance to industry has been even worse. In 1977–78, 16 per cent. of Great Britain's total came to Yorkshire and Humberside, whereas in 1980–81 it had come down to 9·8 per cent. Therefore, we have economic starvation, jobless thousands and too many no-hope kids without a future—61,000 of them under 20 years of age. If we do not pick up soon, it could be a county of despair.
There could, however, exist just the boost that we are looking for, in—I hope that the Minister will note this plea—the Japanese Nissan car plant which the Secretary of State said on his return from Japan might still go ahead in the United Kingdom. If that be so, the south Humberside site would be ideal. It would also provide an enormous economic fillip to the region. It would be one of the biggest inward investment projects on Humberside using the steel of Scunthorpe and Sheffield, rectifying job losses in Hull and Grimsby and using the varied skills of the many unemployed people who used to work in the steel and engineering industries. At the same time, the Government can make up for their financial starvation of our industrial development by according the plant equal grant status which may be available in other regions.
We stress that we should like a substantial British content in the product. It should not simply be an assembly plant for foreign imports. Nevertheless, it is a prize worth fighting for. We shall be harnessing our energies to capture it for Yorkshire and Humberside.
The Government's heartless monetary policy has been an abysmal failure for Yorkshire and Humberside. We shall have to change direction substantially if we are to stave off total collapse. What the Government should be doing, and what a future Labour Government will have to do, is take more power of Government industrial intervention and more regional economic planning, expand the public sector and public spending and make a clear commitment to effect a change in the disparities between the regions. Exhortation does not work. We must use the power of public purchasing to stimulate investment in industrial activity in the regions. Where substantial grants are involved, whether investment or capital grants in specific industries, an equity stake for the public must be assured. Privatisation is not the answer. It breeds first and second-class sectors in industry. There is the profit-making sector which survives and the other, which even if in temporary difficulties through the force of market changes, goes to the wall. Some are leaner and fitter, but how much industry is left?
The so-called resolute approach has blinded the Government to the human cost of their policies. They have inflicted the immediate harms of poverty and hardship on millions of our people. They have also spread fear on an unparalleled scale. There is fear of unemployment and fear

of nuclear war. That is typical of the Government's callous attitude and their resolute approach. The Prime Minister, with her cold war warrior image of a nuclear striker, has caused vast millions of people to be disturbed and afraid. Fear of unemployment and then of nuclear war has been spread throughout the country. That has been responsible for the rebirth of anti-nuclear weapons demonstrations and the British peace drive.
The Government display the same callous attitude to the unemployed. There are 4 million unemployed people, registered or not registered, more than 300,000 of whom are in Yorkshire. Their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, relatives and even neighbours—untold millions—are directly and indirectly affected. The Government display an unemotional indifference to human suffering, misery, poverty and family strife. They have no concern for the pride of man and the workless who suffer the indignity of the dole queue.
There is a vast reservoir of pent-up emotion against the Government. It is to those millions that we shall appeal. We shall harness them on a theme of jobs and peace, work not war. I prophesy that when the ballot boxes are emptied—the real opinion poll—there will be revealed an avalanche of rejections of this uncaring Government, sufficient to sweep them out of office. We in Yorkshire and Humberside, one of the many regions in the north that are suffering and which still hold the Labour vote, will be ready for the fight whenever it comes. For the sake of the distressed millions, let us hope that it will not be long.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was brief and I shall try to emulate him in that respect. There was a good deal in his speech with which I did not agree. I do not believe that he would expect me to agree with it. The same applies to much of the motion that he moved. Nevertheless, there is one phrase in the motion that rings bells on both sides of the House and with which my party would wish to be fully associated. It is the phrase that expresses concern
at the demoralising effects on those unemployed persons who are suffering indignity, misery and family unhappiness as they strive to live.
I hope that no one will adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and try to pretend that compassion is a proprietary party possession, whether it be the Labour party, the Social Democratic party or the Liberal party. We fully share and endorse the sentiments that are expressed in that part of the motion. If the Opposition really believe, as is suggested in the motion, that Government policies have inflicted the pain of unemployment, they must share responsibility for that.
The Labour Government formed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in the 1960s presided over close on a threefold rise in unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside—from 23,000-odd in 1966 to 57,000-odd in 1970. I might add that that was before any oil price shock. The next Labour Government, that formed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), presided over a rise in unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside from 53,650 in 1974 to 121,000-odd in 1979. That, too, occurred in the relatively palmy days before the 1979 oil price shock. If the Opposition point out that unemployment has risen threefold since 1979, they should bear in mind that there


was a fivefold rise under the previous two Labour Governments. We should, therefore, deal with something that is rather more cheerful, constructive and forward-looking than what one sees in the rest of the motion.

Mr. John Prescott: rose—

Mr. Alison: No, I shall not give way. I want to emulate the right hon. Member for Barnsley, who was very brief.
I can hardly do better than sound a note of optimism for the Yorkshire and Humberside region by quoting in full the second paragraph of the 1983 "Regional Strategy Review", which has been published by the Yorkshire and Humberside county councils association. It is the yellow document which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will have seen. The paragraph states:
The region faces the 1980s and 1990s with considerable potential to create new jobs and improve the quality of life. It has a large and experienced labour force, attractive serviced industrial land and buildings, assured energy supplies, an established commercial base, a location in the centre of Britain, areas of good living environment, a range of inexpensive housing and a strong cultural and sporting tradition.
If the right hon. Member for Barnsley wants Nissan to come to Yorkshire and Humberside, that is the sort of statement that we should be hearing, not the gloom and doom that is spread by partisan speeches from the Labour Benches.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Perhaps the Minister will also read the first paragraph of the review.

Mr. Alison: The review shows that there is something on which to build in the region, with a real chance for a better future. I make no apology for showing that there is some good news about even at present. For example, there is the Leeds computer firm, called Systime, which has obtained a £6 million loan from the European Investment Bank to help finance its new £30 million factory which is due to open this year. It could create 800 new jobs, 450 still in Leeds. It is anticipated that during the year Systime will become the largest private employer in Leeds. This is progress in the knowledge-intensive sector in which the Japanese excel. If we can develop in that way, there will be a much better chance of Nissan coming to Yorkshire.
Microvitec of Bradford plans to expand and increase its production of visual display units, which incorporate the latest microelectronic equipment. The company currently employs over 100 people and hopes to increase that to 450 this year and to over 1,000 by 1986.
Work of another sort includes a 600m extension to the main runway of the Leeds-Bradford airport. Work began in June 1982 and is expected to finish in 1984. The project, which includes re-routeing the main Bradford-Harrogate road, is worth about £13 million, and when completed should bring increased foreign business to the region. It is another bait that might help to bring Nissan to Yorkshire.
The Selby coalfield complex—which is in my constituency—is expected to come into full operation in the late 1980s. It will employ about 4,000 men on a three-shift basis. The complex is expected to produce 10 million tonnes of coal a year for 40 years and is the largest integrated coal mining complex currently under construc-tion in Europe. Again, it shows that the Yorkshire and Humberside region is in the van and not at the rear. This is not the gloom and doom of the past. The region is the area to which Nissan might well look with some hope and expectation.
Associated with the coalfield development is the new east coast mainline railway diversion, the first major new high-speed railway trunk route to be built this century. Trains are scheduled to use the whole 14-mile route from October. Let us hope that it will carry plenty of Japanese business men. It will not do so if we continue to hear speeches of the kind that the right hon. Member for Barnsley delivered this evening.
British Steel has an impressive recent record in spite of the gloomy note that the right hon. Member for Barnsley sounded.

Mr. Prescott: Oh blimey!

Mr. Alison: With great respect, I can hardly hear myself speak when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) shouts from a sedentary position.
Last spring the BSC just about broke even and the prospect for 1982–83 was for a small profit before interest. However, factors outside the management's control—notably the American protectionist measures and a sharp downturn in world markets, over which the steel industry, the Government and Britain 'lad no control—mean that the corporation is again making heavy losses and is having urgently to reappraise its prospects. In so far as the fate of the steel industry lay in Britain and in British hands, BSC's achievement in reaching profitability was brilliant. In the private sector, a number of rationalisation schemes, involving support under the Government's private sector steel scheme, are currently under consideration.

Mr. Frank Hooley: With a loss of jobs.

Mr. Alison: The prospects for the fishing industry are good following the new agreement on a European common fisheries policy. The favourable quotas agreed for the United Kingdom, combined with conservation measures and the agreements on effective enforcement, mean a likely increase in fishing stocks over the coming decades, which will give our industry the potentiality at least of growth instead of decline.
Despite the problems, the textile and clothing industries remain of major significance to the United Kingdom economy. Employing, as they do, over 500,000 workers—one-tenth of the manufacturing labour force in the United Kingdom—and having an annual turnover of about £9 billion they account for about 5 per cent. of the gross domestic product.
Every Yorkshire man will agree that the wool industry is to be congratulated on its excellent export record. That is something that will cause everyone in west Yorkshire to be proud. The Government are well aware of concern about the industry's future, but it should not be forgotten that textiles and clothing are already the most protected sectors of British manufacturing. The new multi-fibre arrangement will reinforce this protection.
An attitude of hopelessness or despair where a traditional industry is in decline is not worthy of a country such as Britain, nor of a region such as Yorkshire and Humberside, which led the world into the industrial revolution.
Japanese shipbuilding, for example, managed to become the world's lowest cost producer. As late as the mid-1970s it launched over 50 per cent. of the world's ships and was a major source of Japanese prosperity. Yet


cheaper producers have come along and the latest Japanese plans involve incentives to scrap over 25 per cent. of capacity. I am sure that the Japanese will not sit still and bemoan the fact. They will be out to conquer new territory.
Yorkshire should not be too dazed by Japanese manufacturing potential. In spite of the decline in employment in manufacturing, to which the right hon. Member for Barnsley referred, Britain still has a greater percentage of employment in manufacturing than Japan. Japanese success is due entirely to the extraordinary productivity of the smaller labour force.

Mr. Prescott: And the role of the Government.

Mr. Alison: Japan has nearly four times as many employees engaged in agriculture as Britain and has nothing like our regional or national productivity. If we want to welcome the Japanese, and especially Nissan, to Yorkshire, we want to tell the world what Yorkshire is capable of doing. It is capable of doing at least as well in manufacturing as the Japanese, in the same way as we do better than them when the two agriculture industries' productivity figures are compared.
When the Government took office, 44 per cent. of Britain's working population lived in areas benefiting from regional aid. When we have reviewed regional policy, it has been our intention to concentrate regional aid on the areas of greatest need. It was against that background that the Government considered that assisted area status was no longer appropriate for much of Yorkshire and Humberside, which has a varied industrial base, good communications and a skilled work force.

Mr. Cryer: And high unemployment.

Mr. Alison: We realise that there are particular problems in certain parts of the region—for example, in Mexborough, Hull and Scunthorpe. About 40 per cent. of the working population remain in assisted areas in the Yorkshire and Humberside region compared with a national average of only 27 per cent.
I shall emphasise what has been done for the region since the Government took office. It has received over £180 million-worth of regional development grants and about £40 million-worth of selective assistance. The Government have recognised that parts of the region suffer from serious urban deprivation. Nearly £90 million has been allocated for 1982–83 to Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham under the urban programme. These are large sums.
In common with the rest of Britain, the region benefits from many other support schemes generally. Under the Department of Industry's loan guarantee scheme, 557 guarantees have been issued since June 1981 covering loans totalling £16·1 million. I should also mention the aid that is being given to help new technology—this is particularly relevant if we wish to encourage Japanese inward investment—including the microprocessor applications, project and robotic schemes. Under these headings, nearly £15 million of assistance has been offered or paid to 176 firms in the region. There are now enterprise zones at Wakefield, Rotherham and Scunthorpe.
The Government recognise the vital role that small firms can play in the economy and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry reminded the House,

over the past three years we have introduced 98 schemes or measures to help small business men. We certainly need entrepreneurs, and a region which includes Leeds, Bradford, Barnsley and Rotherham and many other industrial power houses, must be full of risk-takers and innovators ready to take on the market. It is profitable business, not the Government, which in the end creates worthwhile permanent jobs. What the Government can do is to pursue policies which help to create the right environment in which firms are able to prosper.
It is also worth pointing out to the House that quite unprecedented levels of Government spending on special support measures have been introduced, designed to protect both jobs and the jobless. These are having a big impact in Yorkshire and Humberside. For example, about 39,000 people in the region are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the job release scheme, the community programme, community industry and the young workers scheme. In addition, 55,000 young people started courses under the youth opportunities programme in 1981–82 and more than 44,000 have started courses since 1 April 1982.
The Manpower Services Commission plans to provide 63,100 youth opportunity programme places in 1982–83 in Yorkshire and Humberside, of which 9,700 will be the new one-year training places under the youth training scheme. The right hon. Member for Barnsley made a big point of the prospects for our youth in Yorkshire. I should remind the House, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular, that for every 10 school leavers who come forward at present, three stay on at school or go on to further education, three find jobs, and for the remaining four we shall now be offering a guaranteed place in our one-year youth training scheme this year of whom at least 50 per cent. will get jobs at the end of it.
I could elaborate on some of the commendable local efforts that are being made by local authorities and private individuals to help us under these various support measures, but I wish to be brief, to enable as many Members as possible to contribute to the debate. It is clear to all but the blind that Britain cannot be isolated from, and has been severely battered by, some economic fire storms, which have laid bare much of the terrain of the Western world's trade and employment.
I shall not repeat and weary the House with figures showing how our neighbours across the Atlantic and the Channel are suffering, as we are, from import penetration, over-capacity in certain areas of production and, in consequence, rising unemployment. The facts are too widely known and appreciated both at home and abroad for repetition to be necessary.
There are, however, some indications that the tide is changing for the West's economy, and the real question is whether Britain will share in any steady upturn in world trade. Here, competitiveness is generally acknowledged to be the key. For example, a 1 per cent. increase in Britain's share in the world export of manufactures is worth 250,000 jobs. Surely a great opportunity is there to be grasped. The key to competitiveness is, in turn, low inflation, low interest rates and low unit labour costs. In all these areas our performance is moving steadily and persistently in the right direction.

Mr. Prescott: Down.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman says "down". If our unit labour costs are going down, the House may be sure that they consistently went up under the Labour Government.
For example, the percentage rise in manufacturing unit labour costs in 1982 was only 4·9 per cent. That was just 1 per cent. more than Japan's or Germany's and half the rate of increase of the United States. When one contrasts that with the 32·6 per cent. increase in unit labour costs in 1975 alone, one can understand why high unemployment has hit Britain and why we have a chance of reversing that malign post-war trend under the present Government's policy. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the motion.

Mr. Ben Ford: A British Prime Minister once said that in order to produce a solution one should understand the problem. The Minister has not demonstrated to the people of Yorkshire that he understands the problem.
As is natural, I intend to speak about the area that I represent, but I wish to make it plain that I do so in a regional context, and that I and my Bradford colleagues are ready to help any of our colleagues in the Yorkshire and Humberside regions to obtain employment for their areas. That is one of the reasons why we have supported the Nissan project for south Humberside.
One of the great problems that Bradford has suffered over the past 10 years has been the loss of a number of major items normally associated with large cities and the type of area in which Bradford exists. What is most disappointing is that decisions by successive national Governments and bodies associated with them in one way or another have made matters move from bad to worse.
There is no doubt that there is a lack of institutional investment confidence in Bradford at present. The reasons cannot be due to local factors. The area has a good industrial relations record. Despite the national image, it has a good local and surrounding environment. House prices and construction costs are as cheap as anywhere else in the country. The area has innovative skills, and initiatives by both the local authority and private sources have done their best to cope with the problems of industrial decline.
The development of Bradford as a tourist centre, Microvitec, to which the Minister referred, the Saltaire Microfirms project, the revitalisation of Listers and Illingworth Morris, the council's benefit shops and its response to the youth training scheme, which the Government have not encouraged, and programme area status are examples of the council endeavouring to help itself. In addition, an industrial museum and the national museum of photography, film and television are sited in Bradford. These are all initiatives taken by the people of Bradford to try to arrest the decline that has been taking place.
The lack of confidence of institutional investors is probably the most serious outcome of the spiral of decline. This factor more than any other is holding Bradford back. What are the reasons for this lack of institutional confidence? Bradford is the largest city in the country which does not have its own vehicle licensing centre. It was removed after local government reorganisation in 1974. That is symptomatic of the decisions of national bodies in the past nine years.
British Rail seems determined to obliterate Bradford from the railway map. In the 1950s Bradford had good, fast direct rail links to all parts of the country for both passengers and freight. Over the years the service has deteriorated. In the latter part of 1982 a party of British Rail's own Golden Rail officials were to travel to Bradford for a promotion event for holidays in Bradford. The train was withdrawn—nobody told them—and they were late for the promotion. Bradford is becoming a ghost city for inter-city rail travel. Good rail communication is vital for things such as the national museum of photography, film and television, to which I have referred.
British Rail, in a letter to the leader of the council dated 20 December 1982, accepts that 20 per cent. of inter-city services to Bradford were cancelled, terminated at Leeds, or more than 15 minutes late. Is it surprising that people outside Bradford lose confidence in the service and that those who live in Bradford use other stations? The consequence is a decline in service.
The original alignment for the A 1 -M1 link—the Pudsey-Dishforth Spur—was to the west of Leeds. That was logical on traffic and on regional policy grounds, because it opened up the region from north to south. Decision-makers consider how far a place is from the major route to London. This theory may not fit all the statistics produced at public inquiries, but the point is usually made to us by developers and chartered surveyors. Unfortunately, an east of Leeds alignment is now proposed, and it is the subject of a long public inquiry. The change is again symptomatic of the recent major strategic decisions that affect west Yorkshire. It makes sense to see road decisions as part of regional policy. A west of Leeds route helps the most disadvantaged parts of west Yorkshire, but an east of Leeds route makes the differences in the county worse.
Bradford university is suffering from cuts as severe as any other university in Britain, bar one. A university is important to the image and perception of an area by decision-makers. Bradford university has a good tradition of co-operation with local and national industry. It is a modern, technological university that is more geared to the 1980s and 1990s than many other more academic institutions, yet it suffers more than most.
Those are a few examples of decisions that have operated against Bradford and against Government regional policy. It is no good giving grants to organisations to establish themselves in an area if other decisions that are taken put off those same organisations. The spiral of decline spreads in many minor ways when institutional confidence leaves an area. Specialist stores and services move out. They are minor decisions in themselves, but they build up and become the death of a thousand cuts.
Bradford has many problems and many advantages. It would help the area most if the Government gave a sign that they believed in it. A better rail service and more support for the technological university would be a good start. More help should be given by a Government decision to locate regional government offices in Bradford and in Yorkshire. I understand the Department of Transport offices in Harrogate are to be amalgamated with the Department of the Environment offices in Leeds. We should put the new office in Bradford and give the city some encouragement. Rates are cheaper, house prices are cheaper and the environment is better in Bradford. Government costs could be reduced and institutional investors would see that the Government have confidence


in Bradford. It would not solve all our problems at a stroke, but it would demonstrate Government confidence in the future of the region. It would be the best form of regional policy decision. Grants to organisations will not help a city much if investors lack confidence. Investors will lack confidence if the Government fail to show confidence. Therefore, I invite the Government to make their actions suit their words.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) into the merits and charms of living and working in Bradford. I shall leave him to his pleasures there, because I represent part of a larger city nearby. We still have the greatest respect for all those who move in and around Bradford. I wish to spread the debate a little wider. Time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall make about five general points that affect the development of trade and industry in Yorkshire and Humberside.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—as we know, everything happens in Barnsley from time to time—reminded me of a phrase used by a former Minister of Labour in a Socialist Government, who, when replying to a similiar debate, said that the speech that he had just heard was not founded on any substance and that the Member concerned had overegged the pudding and found himself out on a limb. That describes the extravagant language of the right hon. Gentleman, especially when he advocated that we should do what we could to bring the Nissan car factory to Yorkshire and Humberside. We all cheered, but if I were to be used as an advocate to visit the management of Nissan and to urge them to come here, I should hide every copy of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
I disagree with most of the motion, except for the last two lines, which state:
And therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent action to remedy this decline and regenerate the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
I agree with that in principle. All hon. Members who represent Yorkshire, especially those of us who are Yorkshiremen, want the best that is going. We want every possible assistance from the Government on the same terms as other regions. However, we do not hold out a begging bowl. We have the merit of our capacity to stand on our own feet, but we want our fair share. I welcome this debate not for the content of the motion but for the opportunity to express a few thoughts about where we are going and to wonder how we can guide our future steps.
No hon. Member welcomes redundancies or the closure of factories. Every redundancy is a human tragedy, and the closure of every factory is a disaster. Who knows when it may be used again, especially after the liquidators and the flesh pickers have left only the bare bones of an organisation that will never again have sinews.
My favourite phrase, which has been used recently by many people, is, "Give us the orders and we shall produce the finest products in the world." That is the underlying spirit of all those who live in Yorkshire.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Donald Kaberry: I am trying to be extremely brief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to speak later.
Orders can be won, not only in Yorkshire but in the United Kingdom, only in the face of keen world competition. Price, quality and delivery must all be right.
Many of us have complained about, and tried to highlight, the image of the British working population. Our capacity is easily discounted. Foreign competitors also want orders and they will use any weapon to beat us. Some of us have complained bitterly about adverse publicity of minor incidents in industrial life. Minor strikes are blown up out of proportion on television and radio and in the daily papers. Each such strike is disproportionate to the remainder of that industry, but it is used by our competitors to show would-be providers of orders that it is no good sending orders to Britain because the workers are always on strike. We must stress, more than ever, the unity of our people, especially the unity of those who live in Yorkshire. I say that in the light not only of the recent world recession but of the world population explosion that has happened in the wrong countries for our business prospects. During the past 20 years the population of the East has increased by more than 700 million. There has been a vast explosion in China, India and Japan. We are courting Japan, but the Japanese are all busy at work and there are now 23 million more of them than there were in 1961.
Time is not on our side, if our industries are to be put right. I hope, therefore, that the Government will move quickly—or, as the motion suggests, urgently—and let us know that they are anxious to back the efficiency, skill and price-cutting efforts of the Yorkshire people to get orders not only in this country, but particularly abroad.
There are three ways in which we suffer in Yorkshire. It is a rarity abroad to see a British motor car, yet many of the parts are made in Yorkshire. There are foundries in Yorkshire that make parts for well-known motor cars in the United Kingdom. There are engineering shops which do the fettling and rough machining before the car is assembled. Thus, the continued loss of the world car market reflects badly on Yorkshire's foundries and workshops.
Similarly, the lack of attention to retooling in engineering workshops is a matter on which the Government can help, because it prevented orders from being placed in west Yorkshire, which has many renowned machine tool factories. Those factories are suffering as a result. The loss of our textile trade means that our Yorkshire chemical companies and dyestuff companies lack orders because of the recession in textiles. So there is an effect right across the manufacturing and selling process.
I shall give a few quick headlines to highlight the ways in which I think the Government can urgently step in to help us to develop our way of life in manufacturing in Yorkshire. The first—I accept that it is a matter of controversy—is the control of inflation. So far, the Government are succeeding in controlling inflation. Certainly, there are prophets of doom who say that as the rate has gone down it is bound to go up. However, it is the Government's task to seek to keep inflation down. The second involves energy costs. This is a matter that has concerned us all very much. If the European Community means anything at all—certainly this is a matter of great controversy—harmonisation should become a reality, and


this country should not suffer at the expense of French, German and Italian companies which have subsidised energy in gas, electricity or transport. We know that that exists, and I urge the Government not only to do something, but to be seen to be doing something about harmonisation of energy costs.
Then there is the small but important matter of overheads in factories. The heaviest local charge is rating. I want non-rating of mothballed factories. I do not want roofs to be stripped, but I want to be able to certify that part of a large building is not being used for manufacturing purposes, even though the machine tools are still there. That can be done simply by certificates and declarations. However, I am told in a letter from the Minister of State that it would require primary legislation. So what? It is an urgent matter, so let us have primary legislation, and let us get down to the non-rating of mothballed factories.
I finish on a strong note that I hope will get a reaction from the Minister. I hope that the Government will seek to concentrate on new industries, electronics, machine tools, robotics, and methods of communication. Under the Science and Technology Act 1965, the Government have wide powers to insist on retooling and to give grants for innovation. They already give money in support of innovation, but it is essential that the Government set a lead to give that drive, certainly to the tool industry, and to insist that all companies engaged either directly or indirectly in Government contracting will retool and take advantage of all the moneys that are available. The process should be speeded up, because at present it is far too slow.
I have much more to say, but I have no time in which to say it. I urge the Minister to give these matters his attention.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Last month, in the Huddersfield travel-to-work area, for every registered job vacancy there were no fewer than 72 registered unemployed. That compares with the average for Great Britain of 31 unemployed after every registered job vacancy. I stress that this has happened in an area which, as recently as May 1979, had an unemployment rate of only 3·8 per cent. The suddenness of the transformation has overwhelmed not only the unemployed themselves, but all the local institutions that try to train people for work, look after their needs at work, and try to cope with the job situation. The suddenness is unparalleled in the rest of the country in recent years, leaving aside, of course, Northern Ireland.
In addition to the appalling misery that has been so well described already in this debate, and which I entirely endorse, the direct cash cost to the Exchequer should surely move the Government. The direct cash cost per annum to the Exchequer of the present unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside must be in excess of £1,515 million—over £1·5 billion a year, a direct cash loss, in addition to the lost production, on which no one can put a value. All this is happening in a region where, in the most manifestly visible form, there is the appalling contrast of work that is desperately needed by the community, things needing to be repaired and modernised, alongside 303,000 people seeking work and unable to find it.
We on the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches believe that the Government should introduce a programme—we are very willing to help them—to get

approximately 100,000 people off the unemployment register in Yorkshire and Humberside during the next two, or three years. We estimate that it could be done at a net increase in public borrowing of something over £350 million. In our view, that money would be extremely well spent if it got people back to work and got the Yorkshire economy back on its feet.
Because of the pressure of time, I shall give only a few examples. The 1981 census, which has seriously revised many Government statistics, confirmed that tens of thousands of households in Yorkshire and Humberside have neither an inside toilet nor a bathroom. That provides scope for a construction industry which at present is flat on its back. There is an increasingly serious lack of staffed hospital beds. During the past 12 months—other Yorkshire Members will bear out what I say—the waiting lists for general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and dental surgery, and the waiting lists of people wanting to get back to work but too sick to do so, have soared. That is due largely to the shortfall in our hospital programme, especially the staffing. Alas, Yorkshire abounds in the distressing spectacle of modern hospital wards shut because the area authority cannot afford to staff them.
Yorkshire's road system is in a state of serious disrepair and the Government are doing little to assist local authorities in making good the ravages of last winter. West Yorkshire's bid for the TPP programme has recently been met only to the extent of two thirds of its itemised bid for road maintenance and repair. My constituency and other Penine valleys have admirable mills, beautifully constructed in a manner that could not be repeated today and which could be refurbished for use by small businesses, but the capital is lacking and, because we are deprived of assisted area status, access to European funds is now denied us.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is it not fair to say that last week the Government announced five schemes to convert Yorkshire mills into small units, in particular a large one in Bradford?

Mr. Wainwright: That makes my point, because I said that it was the major parts of Yorkshire which, deprived of access to European funds, are suffering. I am glad to rejoice in Bradford's success, because that is one of the few parts of Yorkshire which still has assisted area status while the rest suffer from the wilful removal of that status at the Government's hands.
I mention only one other project because of the lack of time. That is the superb waterway system which runs east to west across our county and which stands in need of substantial sums for repair and modernisation and can be used for the energy-saving carriage of freight and the provision of good healthy leisure pursuits. Those and other schemes which we often put to local Members would generate orders for private industry. It is a common fallacy amongst Ministers that such schemes suffer front a dependence on the public sector. Their great merit is that they not only provide jobs but generate orders for the suppliers of goods and services in the private sector.
I make one other suggestion. Government nowadays—rightly so—often proceed by way of experiment with new ideas and methods, with pilot schemes in different parts of Britain. My impression is that Yorkshire has lost out on much of this development test bed work. Yorkshire and Humberside is, on the whole, a


highly representative area. It is what, in Yorkshire, we call a middling area; it has neither the extremes of poverty nor the extremes of riches. That makes it an admirable area for pilot schemes for improving job prospects in Britain.
I should like to see more Government experiments in different methods of industrial training, of which we have not yet found the secret in our county. Pilot experiments in lower interest rates geared to high technology would be valuable, because nobody knows until we try whether the pessimists are right to say that differentially advantageous interest rates always leak away and are sold off to less valuable entrepreneurs or whether it is possible to use subsidised interest rates for specific industrial advance as the Japanese do. There again, pilot schemes would be particularly appropriate in Yorkshire and Humberside.
There are other schemes for developing new inventions and the products of research which first require a pilot test and which ought to come to our county. There is no excuse for Government inertia. Today, the Minister, revelling quite correctly in our Yorkshire scenery, culture and sporting record, took credit for something which has nothing to do with the Government whatever. If he wants to take credit for that, he must take credit for our climate as well. The Government should get off their bottoms and help Yorkshire and Humberside to realise the potential that we know the area has.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: The object of the debate is not to make political capital, but to emphasise the problems that some hon. Members feel exist in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, and I hope that the Government will accept that.
Reference has been made to the steel industry. We are here to talk about the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate on Leeds, part of which I represent. Unemployment in Leeds, which reflects that of the area as a whole, is well above the national average.
Reference has been made to the contribution of the clothing and textile industries to our exports, but no comparison was made with the position two or three years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) will recollect that when he and I visited countries abroad we discovered the existence of textile counterfeiting. There was a job loss of about 2,000 per month in the textile industry in the west riding of Yorkshire. Multiply that over a period of years and one begins to appreciate the problem that has to be faced. I hope that the Governent will take that into account, because counterfeiting is certainly taking place and putting the industry at an unfair disadvantage. An import duty of 90 per cent. is imposed on goods from the west riding of Yorkshire to other countries, but when other countries have to pay an import duty of only 10 per cent. on goods that they send to us, that makes a tremendous difference to our competitiveness.
I do not know how many hon. Members have suffered the indignity—I use that word carefully—of being unemployed. I have. I have had to queue at the labour exchange for my dole money, and I know the indignity and embarrassment that I have felt as a consequence. I do not want to see people experiencing that if it can be avoided. I do not want to see that happen, but I know that it does.
I have contacted the social services, education and the housing departments in Leeds and I should like to quote some figures that I received today. In 1980, 19,300 children received free meals. Last month that figure stood at 24,000—an increase of 20 per cent. The housing department has informed me that it had rent arrears of £33,500 in 1980. Now the figure is £41,000. That is a reflection of the position in Yorkshire, Humberside and Leeds. Those are the Leeds figures, but I am sure they are typical.
The social and economic consequences of unemployment cause me concern. The social services department cannot itemise figures, but it admits that it is being pressurised by the number of social problems confronting it—rent and electricity bills arrears, as well as all the other problems that people have, especially the young. We must look at this issue extremely carefully.
There are no job opportunities. Yorkshire and Humberside has produced, and can continue to produce, much of the wealth of this country. It is a cultural area, but it is regarded as the backwoods.
The Government are not doing enough. I am not blaming this Government especially, but they must bear the responsibility, because they are in power. Successive Governments have failed in their responsibility to propagate the advantages of moving into the provinces. We find that time and time again, not only in this country, but abroad. More money must be put into the Yorkshire and Humberside area to enable it to advertise the advantages that are available so that investment and industry may be attracted to it. The ambition of the people in that area is again to produce, as they have done in the past, the wealth of this country. I hope that the Government will give hon. Members an assurance that the area will be recognised as a force to be reckoned with.
Leeds, with a population of over 500,000, has contributed greatly to this country's wealth. The Minister spoke of what we were producing but he ignored the fact that many major industries—clothing, textiles and engineering—have been allowed to run down. That is of no advantage to the country as a whole, especially to the Yorkshire and Humberside area.

Sir Patrick Wall: Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), one would have thought that everything had been caused by the Government. He seems never to have heard of world recession. There was no mention of the fact that every European country has been affected by the recession. There was no mention of the fact that Britain now has the lowest inflation rate since the 1960s. There was no mention of the fact that interest rates are down by 5 per cent. since 1981, which is the equivalent of a benefit to industry of £1,000 million.
Of course unemployment at 14·5 per cent. on Humberside is far too high, but one does not stop giving the patient unpleasant medicine when he is beginning to be cured. Of course more can be done. Rates in Humberside under the present county council rose by over 60 per cent. last year. That is driving industry out of Humberside and certainly will not attract the Japanese. Rates are compounded by the unfairness of water rates. By the time of the next general election, I hope that the Government will have done away with the iniquitous rating system that we have in this country.
I believe that the wages councils should be abolished, because they contribute greatly to youth unemployment. In Germany a youngster gets paid about a third of the wage of a skilled adult. In this country it is more like two thirds. That means that many firms will not employ youngsters. It is just not worth it. That is why Germany has more apprentices and more skilled workers than we do.
British Aerospace, in my constituency, has cut its apprentices by more than 50 per cent. It needs only that number itself. In the past, British Aerospace in Brough had a pool of trained labour for use by the whole of the area. That is no longer possible. Everything should be done to encourage youngsters to work, but at a lower rate of pay. Wages councils are pernicious in that respect.
Anybody talking about Humberside must refer to fishing. The 200-mile EEZ proved a near death blow to the Hull deepwater fleet. With the common fisheries policy, there is now some hope for the future. It is only right that there should be swop deals with Norway, Iceland and various parts of the world. It is only right that a good slice of available grants should go to the deepwater fleet. It has suffered more than any other section of the fishing industry from the loss of third country waters. Hull needs about 20 to 25 freezer trawlers to make it viable. That means an allocation of some 75,000 tons of cod equivalent.
Today I have been told that Hull distant water vessels have not caught up to their quotas. The House may be interested to hear some figures. The cod quota was just under 19,500 tons. Only 11,700 tons were caught by Hull deep water trawlers. Why have they not caught more? The quota for mackerel this year was 51,000 tons and the catch by Hull trawlers was only 32,000 tons. The quota for herring was 5,000 tons but the catch was only 1,200 tons. It seems strange to me that the full initiative of the deepwater fleet has not been used.
I hope that the Minister will be generous to the deep water fleet on Humberside when it comes to restructuring. It now has a future and it should be helped to make that future satisfactory. To qualify for these grants the trawlers have to fish for certain periods. I understand that the Minister is prepared to be flexible over refitting time, but international rules must be obeyed.
I hope that the Minister will do something relevant about redundancy pay for fishermen, which has been the subject of previous debates.
When I toured my constituency in the long summer recess, I found the farmers in very good heart. I found most of the industries in good heart, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. I noticed on the Tape today that the income of farmers increased by 45 per cent. last year. [Interruption.]
In the industrial sector of my constituency, I find that some of the caravan firms have done very well indeed. Paul and Whites in Beverley has done extremely well, as have the Hargreaves Group in Beverley—Howdendyke and many others. The gloom and doom that we have been hearing from the Opposition does not apply in my constituency.
I must refer to British Aerospace in Brough. It has orders for the 146 passenger jet and for more Sea Harriers. I recently visited McDonnell Douglas in the United States. I am delighted at the co-operation that is taking place between British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas over new technology in the advanced jump jet, the AV8B and the VTXTS, which is the new trainer for the American

navy. This co-operation between a British and American firm is the right answer and will ensure a good future for British Aerospace, especially in Brough.
I understand that the youth training scheme when it becomes fully effective later this year will have up to 10,000 places in Humberside alone. That is good news for school leavers.
So far, hon. Members have agreed that the south Humberside is the best site for the Japanese, with good communications, skilled labour at Scunthorpe, a port at Immingham and plenty of room to expand. I hope that the final decision will be made soon.
Enterprise zones have been successful, but nothing much is said about free ports. They could well be the answer for Humberside. I have seen successful free ports in Taiwan and they have also been successful in other countries, because they attract foreign investment and create new employment. No duty is charged on the goods manufactured in such free ports, but they must be exported, thus helping the country's balance of payments. Of course there is more in it than that, but I have sent the relevant Minister a full report on the concept of free ports. South Humberside, and particularly the aerodrome at Kilmington, would be a very satisfactory site for this country's first free port.
Humberside has, of course, been hard hit, but, with true Yorkshire grit and common sense, it is fighting through and under this Government and the next Conservative Government it will have a very bright future indeed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place, because he said that there were signs that things were becoming more cheerful. I regret that I cannot share his view. Yesterday, on my way to the House, I went past the jobcentre in Wakefield. The Minister's constituency is next door to mine, and if he had seen what I saw—youngsters queueing to get in with a look of disillusionment and hopelessness on their faces—he would not have said that.
West Yorkshire county council has estimated that 764,000 people were employed in the area in the period up to June 1982. The decline in employment in west Yorkshire has been significantly higher than the national average. Indeed, in the four years since 1978, an estimated 100,000 jobs have been lost in the county. That represents a 12 per cent. decline in the number of jobs, compared with a national figure of 7 per cent. Unemployment in west Yorkshire has remained about average for Great Britain since mid-1980, although in some areas unemployment is above average. The total percentage for the area is 13·6 per cent., which means that 125,165 people are unemployed.
However, the number of those registered as claiming unemployment benefit does not reflect the scale of unemployment. The county council's estimate of the number of unemployed people in west Yorkshire who are not registered as unemployed is now about 50,000. The true unemployment rate for the county is therefore 19 per cent., compared with 18 per cent. for Great Britain.
In the Castleford travel-to-work area there were 52 unemployed people for every vacancy in January 1983, compared with 31 in Great Britain and an average of 34 in west Yorkshire. I fully appreciate that there are much worse pockets of unemployment that ours in Yorkshire, but it should be borne in mind that the Castleford travel-to-work area has five pits, with a dozen on its perimeter,


and that we rely to no small extent on the coal industry, which depends for 75 per cent. of its market on Central Electricity Generating Board purchases for electricity generation. In turn, 80 per cent. of the CEGB's fuel base is coal, compared with 10 per cent. nuclear power. Coal employs 60,000 people directly in Yorkshire, as well as others in supporting industries such as railways and power stations. Each nuclear power station the size of Sizewell would probably remove the need for about 1 million tonnes of coal, the output of three to five collieries. If more nuclear power stations are developed, unemployment in coalmining areas will become desperate.
In the near future there may be an appointment to the National Coal Board with the intention of running down the industry. I hope the miners get the message that if they grab at the carrot of redundancy pay that will be dangled before them, they will be selling not only their own jobs but the jobs of their sons. If this happens, Yorkshire will be an even more depressed area. Even though we are blessed with the great Selby coalfield, with a job capacity of 4,000, as we have been told by the Minister, if that is to replace the capacity in north Yorkshire, where 16,000 miners are employed, there will be a loss of 10,000 to 12,000 jobs. We are alive to the possibility. The next chairman of the National Coal Board should have experience in the industry so that he understands it and will not allow it to be butchered, as has happened in the steel industry.
There is scope in the derelict areas of the Yorkshire coalfields to produce hundreds of jobs if grants are made available. Unfortunately, grants have been reduced over the last few years. While the county has attempted to solve the problem, it cannot cope, because as thousands of hectares are reclaimed, thousands more hectares are becoming derelict. A massive injection of capital would help to solve the problem and might lead to jobs for some of the youngsters who are unemployed.
It may be worth stressing in a regional debate the need for regional policies by the Government. Sectoral policies and major development proposals should be given greater attention. This is one way of helping to prevent regional imbalance. Regional policies tend to be used only when a region is obviously in deep economic trouble. Surely it would be better and more cost-effective to take measures to prevent regional imbalance arising in the first place.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Household incomes in Yorkshire and Humberside are the lowest in Britain. That fact should dominate this debate about our region. The Minister, himself a Member for a Yorkshire constituency, quoted the second paragraph of a regional strategy review of the Yorkshire and Humberside county councils association in which it was stated how experienced was our labour force, how assured were our energy supplies, and so on. All that was correct. However, in playing a game of ping-pong politics, he found it expedient to omit the first paragraph of the document, which stated that Yorkshire and Humberside had serious problems, that its unemployment was above the national average and that its household incomes were the lowest in Britain.
The Minister's speech contained nothing to show that he was prepared to confront the real problems. The

Minister picked out the good things, and there are good things to be picked out. However no one would have known from the Minister's speech that the textile, clothing and footwear industries in west Yorkshire have lost 33·9 per cent. of their workers and the engineering industry 27·2 per cent. of its workers in the last four years. There has been a loss of 103,000 jobs in west Yorkshire alone.
In the Bradford, Shipley and Bingley travel-to-work areas on 13 January this year, there were 25,258 people officially unemployed, representing a rate of 15·5 per cent. There were three vacancies available for every 100 people unemployed. One does not, of course, blame everything on the Government. One knows that it is important to encourage high productivity, to reduce over-manning and to make British industry competitive. It is not, however, a serious response to the debate to argue how good are the cricket results, when they are good, and to say how pretty the county is. That is an insult to the people who are unemployed in Yorkshire.
Two of the three major industries in Yorkshire and Humberside have suffered the most enormous damage. If the Government, on coming to power, had thought that their policies would produce these results, they would never have embarked upon them. Nothing was said by Conservative spokesmen during the election campaign to show that they envisaged such enormous levels of unemployment either in Britain or within the region, or that they appreciated that the slump ensuing from their restrictionist policies would endure into 1983. The fact that the position is still so bad proves that the Government have been taken by surprise and that they fail to understand the effects of what they have done. There is no real glimmer of light ahead. It is not unpatriotic to say so: it needs to be stated.
The Minister asked the House to appreciate the success of wool textile exports. That is true. The industry is to be congratulated but how does that lone comment appear when the Wool Textile and Clothing Industry Action Committee states that the industry is in a parlous condition and that 240,000 jobs have been lost during the operation of the previous multi-fibre arrangement? What is needed from the Government is powerful action. The trouble is that Yorkshire and Humberside is not so attractive as areas of the south and the south-east, but, with the exception of Bradford, we do not have assisted area status similar to areas in the north-east region and Scotland. Accordingly, Yorkshire and Humberside have the worst of both worlds. However, the Government seem incapable of recognising that and taking action.
The Government must stimulate the nation's economy and that of Yorkshire and Humberside in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said, there are a number of ways to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsberg) has problems similar to those of other Members representing textile industry areas. He wishes me to say on his behalf that the Government must take action to stimulate the economy. There are ways in which the enormous burden of expenditure to maintain unemployed people can be reduced. The ethnic peoples are disproportionately unemployed. Youth in this area is disproportionately unemployed. Those people may be alienated from our society. We must worry not just about the economic consequences, but also about the social consequences of endemic unemployment.
One must consider the state of the railways, and the fact that the Government have now received a report which recommends, as one option, that they should close down railways in large parts of Yorkshire, including Leeds, Bradford and so on. We expect the Government to say that they will have no truck with any such devastating proposals that would destroy communications in Yorkshire. We want the Conservative party, whether in government or opposition, to say that it will have no truck with such proposals.
We want the Government to initiate, for example, heat insulation programmes and railway electrification. During the last debate on the region in 1981 the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) suggested a number of schemes that the Government could undertake to reduce unemployment and keep men constructively employed. Those schemes have not been undertaken by the Government.
Most hon. Members representing the region know well what is required. Many people could be put to work in a way which would strengthen the country's economic infrastructure, and which would reduce the enormous and growing disparity between north and south. It is about time the Government took their finger out and did something about it.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The motion, which has many fallacies, is possibly too simplistic. It assumes too readily that, by taking funds from the profitable and successful by way of taxation, the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside can be resolved. It assumes that the Government can resolve the misery of unemployment and family unhappiness, but there is a limit to what Governments can do. Governments can help and they can hinder. The House must bear that in mind. Nevertheless, I welcome the debate, even though I come from Sheffield and south Yorkshire.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) said, any Government would wish the area to be prosperous and even for a return to the late 1950s and early 1960s when we were told that we had never had it so good. It was in the 1960s, with perhaps the Jarrow marches in mind, that Lord Hailsham, under Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister, initiated selective help for the north-east—Newcastle, Tyne and Tees.
The northern region has enjoyed a special coherence and entity, new towns and industries, which I encountered on a recent visit. That coherence is true of Scotland and of Wales.
Before local government reorganisation and when Yorkshire was top of county cricket, it had an entity and real pride. There were Yorkshire associations and societies in London and all over the English-speaking world.
Conservative Members recently met the Yorkshire and Humberside county councils association. The association urged Members of Parliament for the area to work together in the area's interests. It was pointed out to me at a recent meeting of the Sheffield chamber of commerce that the Association of Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce shared that wish. That includes Members of Parliament of all parties, but the situation is somewhat difficult, especially in Sheffield where, ironically, the idealism, the policies and perhaps the machinations of the Left-wing city council and the issues that it supports are helping to bring about the decline of some of the city's basic industries at a time when those industries face the winds of competition and

recession. I admit that the recession is a world phenomenon, but as the only Conservative from 13 to 17 seats in the south Yorkshire area I find the all-party balance a little out of true. Nevertheless, today's debate has brought Members from Yorkshire and Humberside together, and I very much hope that we, as hon. Members, can go forward together to face the challenge confronting our area.
Inevitably I must deal with Sheffield. I welcome the fact that the Open Polytechnic may well be situated in Sheffield at the Manpower Services Commission headquarters, and that the Rev. Dr. George Tolley, who for years was principal of Sheffield polytechnic, may be principal of it. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, of which I am a member, has been very much concerned with the Manpower Services Commission, with the youth opportunities programme, with training and with the transition from school to work or, alas, unemployment. Not only in Sheffield, but in other parts of the country, I have met young people who have no jobs and who need encouragement to face the challenge of the future. Some 25 years ago, I was very much involved with apprentice training. I said then, and I still say to young people, that to gain a skill qualification in times of employment, let alone in a recession, at best gives satisfaction at work and play, but that the important thing is to have skills that others need and will pay for.
I was made aware of another factor that must not be forgotten four years ago when I was in the European Parliament, but more recently in the Economic Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe of which I am now a member. Recession and rising unemployment are not confined to Sheffield, south Yorkshire or Yorkshire and Humberside. They have hit Europe and the Western world as a whole. In the EC, unemployment could be 13 million, in the Council of Europe countries 17 million to 18 million, and in the OECD countries 32 million now and perhaps 35 million next year. Unemployment is hitting Socialist, Social Democrat, Christian Democrat, Republican and Conservative Governments alike I hope that the House will bear this reality constantly in mind so that we may face the future and solve the problems together. The world situation does not make the problem any less urgent in Sheffield and Yorkshire, but a pick-up in the United States, for instance, could lead to a pick-up in Europe and in Great Britain with a feed-back to Yorkshire and Humberside.
In the debate on the regions in July, I referred to the fact that the private sector of the steel industry—the special steels industry—had its back to the wall. Like many other Sheffield names, the successor to Samuel Osborn and Co. Limited, the company with which I have been associated, Aurora Holdings, has unfortunately gone out of steel altogether this week, the last plant to go being at Openshaw in Manchester. This was due to a variety of factors. Unfair competition from the British Steel Corporation and high import levels have already been mentioned in the debate. For the special steels industry, however, it is no good locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. This presents the city of Sheffield with a new challenge.
There are one or two small improvements that I wish to see. First, there should be stronger action by the Government to enable purchasers to know when they are


buying British and when they are not. British wool has had its symbol for many years. The hand tool industry launched its solution at a recent exhibition in Birmingham. But the question of the country of origin is still of concern to the cutlery industry. I hope that the Department of Industry will persuade the Departmant of Trade to reconsider the matter.
Secondly, one or two small successful companies in Sheffield make spare parts for agricultural equipment, the motor industry and other industries. They supply items such as springs, tynes, cutters and so on to repairers and original manufacturers. The new copyright law is making some of the traditional markets dry up—yet that law does not affect those companies' competitors in the EC or elsewhere. This morning I met my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and asked that the Government examine the matter again and act urgently.
Thirdly, an all-important issue is lower energy costs. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said that the coal mining industy was the only industry to survive in south Yorkshire. The possible arrival of Arthur Scargill and the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers in Sheffield are considered to be mixed blessings. As 82 per cent. of our electricity is generated by coal, it is one major cause of Britain having to buy electricity at one of the highest levels in Europe. Mr. MacGregor of the British Steel Corporation has confirmed that that is why electric steel melting is almost impossible in a city such as Sheffield. Perhaps the coal miners' good luck today is the reason why so many steel workers are on the dole. The NUM and the unions presenting steel workers are likely to jump into bed together, but it strikes me that they will be strange bedfellows.
The employers want the price of energy to drop. Cheaper coal would help, as would a positive nuclear energy policy and a successful outcome at Sizewell. But I do not think that Arthur Scargill and the NUM will help to bring that about.
Another small issue is that of the amalgamation of the Steel Castings Research and Trade Association and the British Cast Iron Research Association. I had hoped that they would move to Hoyle Street, Sheffield—which had been a British lion and Steel Research Association laboratory—but I fear that they may go to Birmingham. Can the Minister tell us more about that?
I shall deliberately curtail my remarks. The city and county councils have not done a great deal to encourage industry to the area. The difficulties facing those in the area who wish to stay there must be overcome. The Yorkshire and Humberside region faces a challenge, as do Sheffield and south Yorkshire, and that challenge must be met.

Mr. Albert Roberts: It is always welcome to say a word about one's own county. I have vast experience of my county and am probably its senior Member in the Chamber. I have been a Member for more than 30 years. I have never yet experienced a time when I could say that the Yorkshire and Humberside region has had a fair deal.
The Minister, whose constituency includes the Selby coalfield, cannot claim any credit for its development. It has been there for umpteen years, and was developed

under a Labour Government. It replaced pits that were near exhaustion and others that will be exhausted within the next few years. The Government cannot claim any credit for the Selby coalfield.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Yeadon airport. The Labour party asked for an extension of that airport in the 1960s. It received no help from the Government. In fact, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food turned down that request when he was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. Therefore, Yeadon airport is being extended as a result of the pressure brought to bear by West Yorkshire county council, Leeds, Bradford and other areas. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much money the local authorities who run the airport receive from the Government. I do not know. If there is any help, I suspect that it is meagre.
The county extends from the east coast to within 10 miles of the west coast. We all know the old saying about there being more acres in the county then words in the Bible. We have mixed industry which comprises agriculture, steel, and coal. If only we were a province, we could work out our own salvation. Instead of that, however, we must assist the other areas that go around with begging bowls. When the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred to the development of our hospitals, some Conservative Members shook their heads. I should like them to calculate the unit costs of hospitals throughout the country. If they take the west midlands, Merseyside and London as examples, I guarantee that they take more from the Exchequer than do we in Yorkshire. That is representative of the type of treatment that we have received for years.
Household incomes in Humberside and Yorkshire have already been referred to. It is undeniable that household incomes in Yorkshire are lower than anywhere else. In the 1950s, when there was industry and full employment, we wanted development in the Normanton area. We were told that it must go elsewhere. At that time, skilled workers in Yorkshire were being poached by the car industry. They went because the wages in Yorkshire were lower than those offered elsewhere. We now hear the pleadings nd bleatings of those areas. We have had to put up with what they are suffering all the time.
We would probably be the most economically sound region if we were allowed to develop. However, when it comes to asking for assistance from the Exchequer, we are told, "Generate your own industry". We will generate our own industry. We have the wit. We could be second to none. Hon. Members know what happens in the Chamber. I get sick and tired of hearing about the assistance that is being given to Merseyside. We hear about it week after week. Nevertheless, its geographical location is second to none. We can all quote indisputable figures. The north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the east midlands are the poorest areas. It is high time that the Government paid more attention to their needs.
Signing on the unemployment register has been mentioned. I signed the unemployment register in the 1930s when there was stark poverty. I left school in 1921. We all know about the father of the Secretary of State for Employment and his bike. I could not afford a bike. We only started to have full employment when we were preparing for war. I now hear the Prime Minister talking about inflation. There was no inflation in the 1920s and 1930s. One could buy a semi-detached house for £300. Moreover, in those days, wives did not work, especially


in mining areas. Even so, 5 million of us were unemployed then. If we could have full employment when we were preparing for war, why can we not have full employment when we are preparing for peace?
I have read the economists' theories. I heard them throughout the 1920s and 1930s and I hear them now. However, no one in the Chamber can claim that he knows the answer to our problems. I recognise that we must generate international trade—I am mature enough to know that. The Prime Minister and others say repeatedly that we must reduce inflation and that when that is achieved we shall automatically have more employment.
Whether we like it or not, we are going through an industrial revolution. It is clear that a great change is taking place and I think that the Government could do much more to assist the British people. In the 1920s and 1930s public works were put into operation. New roads were constructed and local authorities did much more in those days for the unemployed than they are doing now.
I should have liked to see the electrification of the railways up to the north-east. That project would have provided work for the steel industry and for other industries as they became involved. The Government have turned away from that project. If inflation is reduced to 4 per cent., for example, is a Conservative Member prepared to say when unemployment will similarly decrease?
My constituency is contiguous to that of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), and we know something about each other. I tell him that it is time that the region had a greater share of the national cake and a fairer share of EC regional aid grants. The figures have been produced by various associations and they are authentic. If Members in the Yorkshire and Humberside region get together, we can cause quite a stir in the House. That is what we should do unless a fair deal is coming in the very near future. If a Conservative Member can prove to me that other regions are not getting as good a deal as Yorkshire and Humberside, I shall be prepared to listen to him with an open mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It may help the House to know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate hopes to catch my eye at eight minutes to 10.

Mr. Michael Brown: I cannot hope to rival the wisdom and personal experience which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) brought to bear in a speech of great eloquence. I recognise that many of the problems to which he drew attention and which occurred in the 1920s and 1930s are to some extent, certainly in my constituency, with us in the 1980s. As a Member of somewhat tender years who looks forward, as do the young unemployed in my constituency, to a somewhat brighter future, I hope that I may have the attention of the House.
I represent a constituency that is heavily dependent on the health and welfare of the steel industry. The Government rightly decided to retain the entity of the steel industry with five major plants, including Scunthorpe and Ravenscraig. The Government have charged the British Steel Corporation with the responsibility of preparing a

corporate plan, which I understand will be presented to the Government shortly and will take into account the Government's requirement to maintain an industry with five major plants.
The Government's decision is to be applauded, but I hope that the British Steel Corporation will ensure that the total output from those five plants will not be reduced and that it had no intention simply of dividing a certain tonnage that it had in mind by five instead of by four if the Government had not sensibly intervened before Christmas.
The Government can claim a great deal of credit, certainly in my constituency, for recognising that the difficulties in the steel industry have not been caused by themselves and were not necessarily all caused by previous Administrations, but when the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred to the problems in the steel industry it was as though cuts and closures had not been recommended to the Administration in which he served in 1975–76. It was as though there had been no recommendations to reduce the size of the steel and coal industries, in the hope that a brighter future was around the corner.
We all know that cuts took place in the steel industry in the dying days of the Labour Administration. Unemployment in my constituency increased by about 1,700 at a stroke shortly before the last general election. The Opposition's record is not one of which they can be proud when drawing attention to the fact that the problems in the steel industry today were created in the mid and late-1970s. But never mind—one accepts that we must move forward.
Even if we accept at face value the commitment by the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), to double the output of steel after the next general election, if the Scunthorpe plant doubles its output of steel it is unlikely that that will involve taking on the 10,000 men who were once steel workers but are unemployed today. I cannot imagine that the efficiency being created in that industry will be thrown away even if the Leader of the Opposition could sell 25 million tonnes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said 20 million tonnes, but in another throwaway line he said 25 million tonnes. But what is 5 million tonnes between delegates at the Labour party conference?
Let us be clear and let us not deceive former steel workers, who may think that with the doubling of steel output there will be a doubling of those employed in the steel industry. Only a few hundred additional men will be taken on. I should like steel output to be increased, but let us be under no illusions and think that that will involve taking on thousands of former steel workers.
We must devote our attention to the problems of providing alternative jobs and industries, and here the Government have a proud record. They have recognised the problems in my constituency during the past two or three years and have given us development area status, which was requested not only by myself but by the Labour-controlled Scunthorpe borough council as well as the Conservative-controlled Glanford borough council.
The Labour council as well as the Conservative council and Conservative Member of Parliament put pressure on my right hon. Friends to consider the case for an enterprise zone. They accepted the case, which was made just as strongly by Labour councillors as by Conservative politicians.
We have had the considerable advantage of our case receiving sympathetic consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for the improvement of the A15 link road, which will link the motorway system and the Humber bridge system and bypass those villages in my constituency that have been adversely affected in recent years. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber, will get the message that we will expect him to complete the excellent motorway network which has given south Humberside the opportunity to bring to fruition many of the jobs that industrialists have in mind.
I should like to bend the ears of my hon. Friends from the Department of Industry to a problem that has arisen with regard to the now redundant site of Nypro in Flixborough. The site tragically closed down two years ago, but there is now a serious purchaser who wishes to take it over as a going concern to undertake certain economic activities. I hope that the National Coal Board, as joint shareholder of the assets of Nypro, will be very much more forthcoming than it has been hitherto with regard to any negotiations that might be entered into if there are serious purchasers, which I understand there are, for that site.
The Government have recognised the role of non-governmental agencies in assisting the promotion of Yorkshire and Humberside. I congratulate my hon. Friends on what they have done to support the Yorkshire and Humberside development association. The Government have given some aid to that worthwhile organisation, upon which many hon. Members on both sides of the House rely for information and the encouragement and promotion of Yorkshire and Humberside. The Government also have a proud record in helping the tourist board.
There are unemployment difficulties in the region, but they would have existed whichever Administration were in power.

Mr. Prescott: They would have been smaller.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a contribution—he has been in and out of the Chamber and shouting frequently from a sedentary position—he should try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Some industries in south Humberside have a proud record. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) said that agriculture has done extremely well. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) belittled what my hon. Friend said about the achievement of the agriculture industry in Humberside. He should recognise that the contribution of that industry, especially to Humberside, is just as large as that of the heavy manufacturing industries. My hon. Friend also mentioned free ports. Everyone is talking about free ports, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said how seriously he is considering the idea of a free port in Britain. Immingham in south Humberside is well placed to be given serious consideration should my right hon. and learned Friend have something interesting to say on the matter in his Budget speech.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have played their part in drawing attention to the benefits of Nissan coming to south Humberside. I hope that the Government

will do all that they can to make the case for south Humberside, so that not only my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland will visit Japan to make a case for their areas, but so that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment—a Yorkshireman—will visit Japan and put forward Yorkshire and Humberside.
We have been talking about cricket teams, but perhaps we could now move to football. The manager and the team of Scunthorpe United, which was bottom of the fourth division and facing relegation last year, pulled themselves up by their boot straps when they recognised that they were in difficulty and that no Government would help them to get to the top of the fourth division. My constituents think as much of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East as they do of Hull City football team. The achievement of Scunthorpe United shows that the people of south Humberside believe in self-help. When we seek promotion in the industrial league tables we shall have followed the example of Scunthorpe United.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The dilemma that faces the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) is that if his unemployed constituents are to have a brighter future it will come only when he is unemployed. Happily, that will happen in the not-too-distant future. The hon. Gentleman was rather caustic about the Labour Government's record on the steel industry. I remind him that in the five years of the Labour Government there was a reduction in the number of people in work of 20,000. In the four years of the Conservative Government, there has been a reduction of 2·25 million. Our present crisis has been caused by the Government destroying about 20 per cent. of the manufacturing sector.
However, Yorkshire's problems have been worsened by neglect, not only by this Government but by the previous Government, and an interesting feature of the House tonight is to see how many hon. Members with marginal seats are present. I suspect that if our area were like the north-west of England or the midlands there would be a great deal more Government concern about the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside. Perhaps part of the reason is our neglect in not having put our case as strongly as we should have done.
In the few moments that I have at my disposal I shall address myself to the problems of York. The city is not as affected by unemployment as some of the areas represented here. Nevertheless, its unemployment has doubled during the period of this Government, and one of the main reasons has been the rundown in the primary industries that are represented in the city. In particular, the building industry has suffered seriously. The Government could stimulate the industry by putting more money into housing and into some of the major sectors for refurbishing the economy, such as sewerage, which badly needs assistance in York. That is one way in which people could get back to work.
It is interesting that Conservative Members constantly go on about not throwing money at problems to solve them, and then claim either that their Government have put money their way or that their Government should put money their way. The absurdity of the Government's economic policy is simply that they do not recognise that this country, and the international economy, will be stimulated only when we invest more in creating demand,


and that the problems of inflation are nothing compared with the problems of the unemployed that have been created by this Government in trying to get down inflation. If I had to face the twin problems of inflation and unemployment, I would rather deal with unemployment than inflation. It is not necessarily a feather in the cap of this Government that they have managed to cut three points off inflation during their four-year term at the cost of three million unemployed. That is the total success of this Government.
Two other major problems face industry in York. The confectionery industry is well represented in the city, and it has seen a major turndown for the first time in any recession since the war. That turndown was caused by the combination of the recession and the introduction of 15 per cent. VAT on confectionery. It would be of considerable assistance if the confectionery industry were allowed to go back to the pre-1968 position, when there was no taxation because it was considered to be food. The confectionery industry as a whole, and York in particular, would greatly benefit.
There is another grave concern. In a city where about 15 per cent. of the working population work on the railways, it would be absurd if the Government were to implement any of the major serious options of the Serpell report. We have debated the matter on other occasions, and I shall not weary the House by going through it again. However, if the Government are really serious in not wishing to cut the major railway network, they could say here and now that they do not intend to implement option B in Serpell, which would cut the railways by about three quarters, and would cut employment in York by about the same figure, and, in particular, that British Rail Engineering will not be sold off and will still have a viable future within British Rail. At present it is still getting orders overseas, and there is no reason why it should be sold off. It would be most reassuring to my constituents if we were to be given that assurance now.
Finally, there is the problem of the glass industry. It is an interesting problem for the country as a whole, because it is increasing its efficiency enormously. Its productivity, too, has gone up enormously. The investment in National Glass in York has been by a firm whose management is good and which has had a marked interest in improving efficiency and productivity. Nevertheless, it is finding it extremely difficult to compete these days with supplies from Germany which are causing considerable difficulties for employment prospects within the city.
If, after the next Labour Government take office with an alternative economic strategy, the country were to invest enormous sums of money in improving our competitiveness by improving our capacity to produce good products, there would be a short period during which industries would have to get back on their feet before competition from abroad began to eat into the market. For that reason if for no other, there must be some system of import controls for a limited period. Such a system would have a considerable effect upon such industries as glass. I hope that after the next election, the glass industry, which at the moment faces a rather sombre future, will have much brighter prospects.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I was particularly struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) when he compared the record of our region with

that of Merseyside. Is not that what is wrong with regional debates? Coming from S hildon as I do, I spoke in the northern region debate. In each of these debates we lack a sense of perspective. Each region is making the same sort of demands. With respect to Labour Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), it is not good enough to say that we want more public spending and a discriminatory policy to correct regional imbalances. All the regions are demanding that. There are the same structural problems in the steel, textile and coal industries in Europe. We are all competing against one another, offering more and more subsidies, and that must be a suicidal course.
We are at a stage when we must think more care fully about the sort of discriminatory aid that we adopt. To designate a region by no means guarantees that companies will go there and that once designated the money available will be taken up in a particular region. We should be giving projects and programmes specific help rather than broadly demarcating great tracts of the country. That is what the Government are beginning to do. At long last we are beginning to follow what has happened in the United States for decades—the matching of funds. It is not a matter of just calling on the Government to do something or blaming them for failing to do something, but of achieving a proper partnership and using public money to stimulate private investment and development.
We are only at the beginning of that process but we have already seen that Yorkshire and Humberside has 34 joint programmes in for urban development grant. In the first round, six were approved last week. As I said earlier, Bradford has over £500,000 to convert a mill into smaller workshop units at a gearing of about 1:4 public to private money. Scunthorpe has had about £1 million in order to trigger off £30 million for the development of the steelworks there. There have been four projects in Wakefield alone; they are not just in Bradford as was said earlier. That must be the way to do it.
It is not just a matter for the Government; it is a perspective which must be determined within the region. It is too glib to say that the Government have not done enough.
My right hon. Friend the Minister described what the Government have done. He mentioned the £15 million in aid to new technology. However, one cannot boast of what has been done as one could in the northern region debate. One of the real tragedies of the Yorkshire and Humberside region is that we are the poorest region for the development of high technology. For example, we are way behind the north-east. The House must look at some of these growth sectors to see whether sufficient help has been given to certain areas.
On regional aid in general, in the last financial year, our region received £47 million a s against £144 million for the northern region. I am not suggesting that my region ought to match the northern region, but it and Merseyside have acute problems. The Government's more selective approach in harness with the private sector is the right way to proceed. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) made the forceful comment that confidence could easily go from an area. He went on to say that institutional investment tended not to go into such an area. That is an important factor. One important factor in the development of business confidence is the role and attitude of the local authorities. There is no doubt that in my region, he it in Humberside, Yorkshire or Sheffield, local authorities have


demonstrated to businesses that want to come into the area their attitude; they are slamming on rates at higher and higher levels. Companies must see a more receptive attitude.
The construction industry is at the heart of any growth in the economy. Whereas 1982 saw an upturn in housing starts of 25 per cent. in England as a whole, the figure for our region is only 11 per cent. Why? With respect to Opposition Members, it is not the Government's fault. The Government have poured in unbelievable sums of money. If one adds up what the Government have just given to Barnsley, Sheffield, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in additional HIP allocations, it comes to £17 million, with £9 million going to Leeds.
The question involves not just Government money but the attitude, in part, of local authorities. In the first half of the current financial year the region of Yorkshire and Humberside has managed to take up only 33 per cent. of its allocation for housing. The region has spent only 33 per cent. in half a year. Throughout last year only 70 per cent. of the resources available for house building were used.
Surely we are in a partnership. It is a matter of getting the private sector interested and of the local authorities doing much more to do so. It is for hon. Members to ensure that their local authorities do their utmost, whether it is to get high technology going by using the wealth of our universities; whether it is by their attitude to the rates; or whether it is having the imagination to find programmes and projects which will attract institutional investors such as building societies. We lie at the heart of the building society industry. Those are the sort of institutions that local authorities, with enough flexibility of mind and imagination, can draw into programmes to rejuvenate our region.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his brief speech.
The winding-up will begin at eight minutes to 10 o'clock. I am anxious to give a south Yorkshire Member and a Humberside Member a chance to speak, so I appeal for brevity.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: When the Prime Minister invoked the famous prayer of St. Francis in Downing Street in May 1979, she promised to unite the nation. After nearly four years of her brand of Government, the nation is more divided than ever. Politically, economically and industrially we are two nations. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in Yorkshire and Humberside. Thatcherism is destroying Yorkshire industry. I shall take as an example the steel industry.
Listening to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), one would not have believed that unemployment in Scunthorpe was over 30 per cent. Employment in the Sheffield steel industry is now just over 20,000 compared with 43,000 in 1979. Like the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, the Secretary of State for Industry has also tried to put a cheerful, complacent veneer on Sheffield steel. In an article in the Sheffield Morning Telegraph on 12 January 1983, the right hon. Gentleman said:

Sheffield and south Yorkshire generally will use its enterprising spirit … and recover its pre-eminence among manufacturing".
The right hon. Gentleman cited a firm in my constituency, Davy McKee, and the contract that it had recently secured. Since the Secretary of State made those remarks, the firm has announced yet further redundancies of 300 plus.
I cannot better indict the Government than by quoting such men as the chairman of the CBI's Yorkshire and Humberside region and the president of the Sheffield chamber of commerce. At about the same time, early last month, the chairman of the CBI in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, Jon Denny, reported in the same issue of the Morning Telegraph, said:,
How can anyone plan for the future if they are living from day to day? … Much of the industry in the rest of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which I represent, has been facing a similar fight for survival.
Dr. John Hervey, the president of the Sheffield chamber of commerce, said:
Sheffield has been feeling the pinch for some time now, but the situation has reached alarming proportions in the last twelve months.
How can one reconcile the views of men on the ground in Yorkshire with the Minister's complacency and the speeches of some of his Back-Bench colleagues?
The Yorkshire and Humberside region is clearly in serious trouble, yet the Government have chosen this time to deprive much of the region of assisted area status. Our region also suffers from an ageing and deteriorating housing stock, yet house building rates have been allowed to fall dramatically. In the inner areas of the major conurbations in west and south Yorkshire there exist the familiar city centre problems of sub-standard living conditions and poor public amenities as well as jobs.
However, when average gross weekly earnings, household weekly expenditure, spending on social security benefits, and regionally relevant public spending per head are compared with other regions—including Scotland, the north and north-west—it shows that our region comes off not merely worse, but very badly. Again, by depriving Sheffield of intermediate area status, the Government have deprived it of EC funds. Through the grant-related expenditure for 1983–84 the Government have cut Sheffield's spending and placed the city in twenty-ninth position in the league table of 36 metropolitan districts. In addition, the Government are punishing Sheffield through the grant penalty system, which will cost Sheffield ratepayers over £14 million in 1983–84, despite its inner city problems.
As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said, Yorkshire and Humberside is a good proving ground for testing Britain's industrial prospects. It is one of the areas in which a pick-up in the economy will soon manifest itself with the right encouragement and Government policies.
As time is short, I shall touch only briefly on the possible growth points. I must inevitably mention steel. I also want to say a word about joint ventures, of the type cited by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall), and about high technology.
Dr. John Hervey, president of the Sheffield chamber of commerce, says:
It really is quite ludicrous that our exports should be subject to such high tariffs while our foreign competitors are aided by low import tariffs … With their foreign rivals getting gas and electricity so much cheaper, they have been at a big disadvantage in world markets"—


he is talking about Sheffield's steel producers—
Government could do a good deal about high energy costs at home.
There are other aids that the Government could provide for steel. The decision by EC Governments to withdraw all types of financial aid from steel by 1985 should be reviewed and preferably resisted by the Government at the earliest moment. High priority could be given to public sector construction projects, of which there are many examples.
On joint ventures we have heard the case for Nissan. I shall not dwell on it, except to say that we have a case, and Opposition Members will be looking to the right hon. Gentleman for the most rigorous prosecution of that case. We shall accept nothing but success. We are determined to win this one. We have rarely won anything from this Government or from previous Governments. We have lost again and again when up against Scotland and Wales and even the northern region. This is one that we shall not lose. That is the spirit and resolution of the Opposition. I hope we shall be joined by Government Back Benchers. If all Yorkshire Members are determined that they will not lose out on this one, and say so to the Government, then we shall not lose out on it.
In regard to high technology, the world is on the edge of a new industrial revolution. Microelectronic gadgetry will reshape our lives. For us the question is what Britain will make of all this. Imports of electronic equipment exceed exports by more than £900 million, and the gap is widening. Britain's most urgent need is to undertake a profound transition from the kind of industry that still depends upon brawn to the brainy world of biomedical engineering, data processing and microelectronics. These are precisely the industries that can constitute beacons for the future development of industry in Yorkshire.
Electronic and microtechnology growth industries are seriously under-represented in Yorkshire and Humberside. We require urgently a centre for industrial innovation and more information technology facilities throughout the region. Above all, we require support from the Government and investment funds to put our region in the forefront of microtechnology. If only the Government would share our faith in the region and ensure that we get the Nissan project, that would give the region a spark back to life. If only the Government would begin in that way to get Yorkshire back to work, they would be taking a practical step in getting Britain back to work.

Mr. Robert Banks: We all wish to have the Nissan contract in this country, and we want it in Yorkshire. The way to do it is to start talking about what industry is doing in Yorkshire and how well it is doing. Running it down, as some hon. Members have done, will not help to persuade the Japanese to bring the Nissan contract to Yorkshire.
I welcome the debate. It is the best experience for all Yorkshire Members when we are able to debate matters relating to Yorkshire to the exclusion of other parts of the country. I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he was talking about some of the good contracts and the good news about Yorkshire. I will not talk about the despondency that Opposition Members have spoken about, because I do not believe it is useful to the prospects of Yorkshire.
Yorkshire is the cradle of industry, and the diversity of our industries and services takes us into every aspect of the production of national wealth. I regret very much the differences between north and south. It is high time Yorkshire got the recognition it deserves. Our industry is impressive in its achievements. Too often we overlook the praise that is due both to management and to work forces for overcoming difficulties and in so many cases improving on each year's results.
I have many examples in my constituency of companies which are doing extremely well this year compared with last year and even when last year's results are compared with those of the previous year. We have a company in steel factoring which is doing very well, as is a company which is manufacturing chemicals for the protection of metal; that company is exporting to Japan. It is high time we banged the drum a bit about what Yorkshire industry is doing. One thing I am sure of is that Yorkshire industry is capable of taking the country out of recession when the time comes. I believe that the time is now upon us.
The Falklands campaign was a remarkable achievement not least in that the task force was able to be put together in a very short time. Many people in industry were involved in that. That is something that is too easily forgotten. People in industry, like those involved in the task force, are capable of achieving the results that we all want to see—that is, firms making competitive products and selling those products in world markets. Out firms are doing that now and achieving great success. I sense a new spirit of confidence beginning to surge among all our people in industry just as it did among those who were connected with the Falklands campaign. With inflation down—a factor of huge importance to industry—and the pound at a level that gives a definite edge in export markets, and a new awareness of the competitive spirit in our factories, we stand to gain enormously.
We are at a point where we can reverse the economic fortunes of this country which have been in decline for decade after decade. This is the best opportunity we have had in the last 20 years to start going out into the world to make Britain a real leader not only in Europe but in world markets. Companies in Yorkshire are able and willing to do that. They are eager to grasp the opportunities ahead because they have the people of the right mind to do it.
There are great opportunities in the service industries. In my constituency of Harrogate, we have a unique conference centre. I stress to the Minister that our rail link to Leeds and to York is of crucial importance and, in my book, sacrosanct. I trust that the future in my constituency will be one of greater prosperity with new developments in the hotel industry. The centre will bring in new trade and new business. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should grant industrial allowances for hotel developments. It is an industry that will be of great significance in the future. It is the service industries that will provide many new jobs.
I have often been told by Americans that Britain has the technology, the skills and the people. It is just that they do not get together to create the companies that can compete with some of the companies worldwide, especially in America. I believe that we are now beginning to have a new confidence in ourselves to do that. We, in Yorkshire and Humberside, must not accept decline. The spirit exists for reversing the decline. I am glad that there has been the opportunity to hold this debate.

Mr. James Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made a masterly and well-marshalled speech. I could not understand why the Minister, as a Yorkshireman, or, like myself, an adopted Yorkshireman, and sitting for a Yorkshire seat, should say what he did about fishing. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "good". I should like to give him some statistics about Hull. No city has suffered to a greater extent. Less than 10 years ago, there were 111 vessels of over 140ft. Today there are 10. We shall see no vessels built in the coming 10 years unless the Government become compassionate, warm hearted and look north beyond Potters Bar and Watford.
The Government are weighted towards the south. We do not get, particularly in Yorkshire, a square deal. That has been stated a dozen times. Less than 10 years ago, we had 2,400 men at sea. Today we have 600. Four years ago, there was an officers' guild with 300 members. Today we have no guild at all. I could continue with similar statistics. I wish, however, to be more cheerful and helpful towards my constituents than the Minister is towards people in England, Wales, Scotland, and, in particular, Yorkshire.
Our labour force in Hull is fighting back. A co-operative has been formed between the bobbers, the dockers, the fish merchants and the auctioneers. With the help of money from the city council the co-operative is now landing 25,000 tonnes of fish a year. By definition, fishing takes place in small centres. Hull and Grimsby are unique in the fishing industry. We have lost 8,000 jobs, representing 35 per cent. of the city's job losses. I say that without fear of contradiction.
I come to the Humber bridge and the people on the south bank. The Humber bridge now links the two sides of the river. For centuries almost, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have been at loggerheads. Hull is now allied with Grimsby and the south bank, and we are working for our mutual good. I am told that adversity makes queer bedfellows. We are not yet in bed with Grimsby but we go together to see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we are hoping to receive aid from the stingy Government we are now fighting.
The fishermen and the people of Hull are convalescing; we are fighting hard and fighting back. We shall succeed, given one thing: that we receive help from the Government out of the £140 million of EC money, which the Government can tot up. We want more help from Whitehall. Why cannot the Government show more humanity? They talk about the Victorian values that they have; we have them in Hull, but we have the good ones—independence, decency, honesty and clan loyalty. We are fighting together to save our future.
The Government must change their attitude towards the north, and Yorkshire in particular, and forget their southern bias. We are fighting back on Humberside, and I believe that we can win if the Government give us a little more help. With that help, we shall be able to pull out of the mess that we are in.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): In view of the time I shall not be able to respond, alas, to many of the issues and questions that have been raised, but I should like to touch on three of the main themes.
Many comments were made and questions asked about Nissan, including those by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and I shall begin with that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was in Japan recently, the company assured him that it was continuing its serious study of the project. As we know, Nissan made it clear last summer that it had merely postponed its decision whether to go ahead. It had not shelved the project. The proposal represents a major decision for the company and it is natural that it should want to research it thoroughly.
The Government continue to welcome the project, which would be a most valuable demonstration of Japanese commitment to improve the imbalance in our economic relations, and also a valuable demonstration of joint ventures in this key industry which we believe to be of advantage to both counries. The right hon. Member for Barnsley asked about the level of components. One of the key features of the project, as I think he must know, is that it should have a high local content—80 per cent. as soon as possible after full production. Without that, the project would not have been welcome.
As to the choice of site, the company has expressed a preference for a site in a development or special development area. Large parts of Yorkshire and Humberside have that. As the House knows, representatives of Nissan visited a number of sites in Wales, Humberside and north-east England to obtain information for the company's feasibility study. If the outcome is positive and the project goes ahead, the final selection of a site would probably be the subject of further detailed study. The Government have not sought at any stage to influence Nissan's choice of site. It is a matter for the company to decide. If it reaches that stage, it is up to hon. Gentlemen, my hon. Friends and many others to put the case again for their region as other regions will. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has put the case well today in the way that it should be put.
I come now to rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) referred to the appalling rate increase of 61 per cent. in Humberside last year. Similarly, an increase of nearly 60 per cent. was imposed by West Yorkshire council. They are both, significantly, Labourcontrolled. It comes ill from Opposition Members to weep crocodile tears about industrial costs when these authorities, of a similar political alignment to themselves, are imposing this kind of increased burden on companies. I hope that as a result of the constant pressures that we put on them they will now see sense and introduce far more realistic budgets and rate increases in the coming years. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about jobs?"] Hon. Members talk about jobs, but they must know that local authorities must achieve a balance between trying to help industries and small businesses in their area, which I support, and imposing heavy rate increases or failing to engage in good housekeeping to such as extent that they drive jobs away from their areas. [Interruption.] I have listened patiently to the debate. I hope that the House will now allow me to answer some of the points raised.

Mr. Prescott: Twit.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman makes a stimulating monosyllabic contribution, but I do not think that it advances the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) referred to rating empty properties. As he


knows, local authorities have a great deal of flexibility in the use of their discretion to levy empty property rates, and some use it to good effect. Indeed, about half of the local authorities in the country choose not to levy empty property rates at all.
I was not present when my hon. Friend spoke, but I was told of his request and I should put these points to him. For the local authority, it is a question of balance in each case. It must consider the impact of the loss of rate revenue on existing businesses and decide on the balance. The Government already have power to reduce local authorities' flexibility in this matter either by extending the grace period when rates cannot be levied or by lowering the rates ceiling, which we introduced in 1981, from 50 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues have told the House, and I reaffirm it, that the matter is being kept under close review to see whether further changes are necessary.
On assisted area status and the amount of Government aid to Yorkshire and Humberside, I repeat the point that has been made many times in these debates that most of industry in the regions wants us to continue our economic strategy of bringing down inflation, interest rates and industrial costs. Nevertheless, I shall give some of the facts as it is important to set the record straight. I shall not repeat the impressive list of figures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave, but I must reply to the challenge that Yorkshire and Humberside have been discriminated against in the Government's regional policy.
Even after the reduction in the coverage of the assisted areas, much of Yorkshire and Humberside retains assisted area status and thus its eligibility for regional aid. That covers 40 per cent. of the working population. In taking the decision to concentrate regional aid, the Government recognise that there are serious problems in some parts of the region, in the areas of greatest need. That is why most of Humberside is a development area, as are Mexborough and Rotherham in south Yorkshire. Other parts of South Yorkshire, Bradford and parts of orth Yorkshire are intermediate areas. Many other parts of the country would regard that as a substantial amount of assisted area status.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) referred to EC money. Regional aid from the United Kingdom Government, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred, has been backed by assistance from EC funds. About £27 million has been received in loans from the European Investment Bank to help firms in the region with capital investment projects, and a further £33 million has been granted by the European regional development fund for infrastructure projects.
The region has been helped in many other ways, with section 8 assistance and science and technology aid, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) that we should like to see a far greater take-up of the science and technology money.
The figures that I have given do not take into account the large sums that have gone into the region through capital investment by the nationalised industries or the battery of special employment measures operated by the Manpower Services Commission. I therefore totally reject the charge that Yorkshire and Humberside have been unfairly treated.
The region and many of its industries have serious problems although, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are also many successes. I am fair minded and I accept that, but the Opposition show a complete lack of

balance. There have failed to analyse the issues, to recognise that there is a serious recession in the same industries in other countries or to recognise the Labour Government's contribution to the current situation.
This is our fourth regional debate and the reason for the frequency of these debates is becoming clear. They are a smokescreen for the total lack of constructive policies from the Opposition, allowing them to make constituency speeches expressing their concern without any probing of their policies either by their own Back Benchers or by Conservative Members. I believe that concern is on all sides but that our policies are right. That is why we reject the motion.

Question put:—

House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 297.

Division No. 76]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen
Dubs, Alfred


Allaun, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Dunnett, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Faulds, Andrew


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Field, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon A .(M'b'ro)
Fitch, Alan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gourlay, Harry


Cartwright, John
Graham, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Clarke.Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'fral Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin F.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Homewood, William


Crowther, Stan
Hooley, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Horam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tarn
Hoyle, Douglas


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Hon Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh' dda)


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dormand, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Kerr, Russell
Robertson, George


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Lamond, James
Roper, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ryman, John


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sandelson, Neville


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, John


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Short, Mrs Renée


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Silverman, Julius


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stoddart, David


Mates, Michael
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R .(Carmarthen)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Torney, Tom


Morton, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


O'Halloran, Michael
Wardell, Gareth


O'Neill, Martin
Watkins, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Michael


Park, George
White, Frank R.


Parker, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Parry, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Penhaligon, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pitt, William Henry
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt HonSir H.(H'ton)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Race, Reg
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Best, Keith


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blaker, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Body, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Bottom ley, Peter (W'wich W)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brotherton, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.





Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Costain, Sir Albert
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Loveridge, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lyell, Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacGregor, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Sir Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mawby, Ray


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon A.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony






Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Stanley, John


Onslow, Cranley
Steen, Anthony


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stevens, Martin


Osborn, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Percival, Sir Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Donald


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilord South)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, B. (Perth)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rossi, Hugh
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Royle, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Watson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wickenden, Keith


Shepherd, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spence, John



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Carol Mather and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lang.]

Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported without amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has made speedy progress through all its stages and, indeed, it would have been extraordinary had it not received a wide welcome. My only regret is that the Committee stage proceeded at such a pace that I had no opportunity to correct a poor answer that I made to a question put by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). I find little comfort in the fact that no one else on the Committee spotted what a mess I had made of it. I should like, therefore, to put the matter to rights.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister knows that, while there may have been a poor attendance in Committee, it was so speedy that some members of the Committee did not even have notice that it was taking place.

Mr. Waddington: I spoke to the hon. Member for Halifax, but I am very sorry that for some reason or other the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not receive notice. But he will, of course, appreciate that that was no responsibility of the Government. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman present tonight.
The Committee stage passed quickly and some of the things that I said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Halifax may have been misleading. I should just like to put the record straight on causes 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Clause 2 deals largely with acts which do not amount to offences under our law but which will become offences if done in relation to nuclear material. I was right to point out that clause 2 also deals with some acts which are already such offences. But when I read Hansard I discovered that the example I gave was not really apt. The example that I should have given is that it is already an offence in English law to threaten to kill or threaten to commit criminal damage. In that respect, the clause merely says that it is also an offence to make those threats by means of nuclear material. Beyond that, the clause does indeed create completely new offences in that it makes preparatory acts and threats other than those that I have mentioned criminal offences.
The Bill was widely welcomed on Second Reading and, while some hon. Members expressed their reservations to the use of nuclear power, even they recognised that the objectives of the convention that the Bill will enable us to ratify were laudable. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As my starred amendment demonstrates, I have a reservation about the Bill which I mentioned on Second Reading. My reservation relates to clause 6. Had I been on the Committee, I am certain that the Committee stage would have taken longer. That is only right and proper because we are here to scrutinise legislation. Once legislation has passed through the House, it is enforceable. It is our duty to apply our minds to legislation as it is passing through the House.
Clause 6(2) states:


If in any proceedings a question arises whether any material was used for peaceful purposes, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State and stating that it was, or was not, so used at a time specified in the certificate shall be conclusive of that question.
That seems to exclude the Secretary of State from challenge in the courts. I always think that that is a dangerous path to follow. As the Minister has said, the terms of the Bill are necessary. We are discussing extremely dangerous material. A tiny minority of people behave extremely dangerously and, if coupled with dangerous materials, we have what is literally a potentially explosive situation. So it is right and proper that we should have legislation that safeguards us against the use of dangerous materials by terrorists.
But if people, against whom allegations were being made in court, could demonstrate that materials were being used for defence purposes when, in fact, the Minister was purporting to say that the materials were being used for peaceful purposes, an entirely different light would be cast on the proceedings. The Secretary of State might use that clause to deny any breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
On Second Reading the Minister said that the peaceful civil nuclear programme has nothing to do with defence. If that is the case, the Government have no need to worry about the Secretary of State being challenged in court by someone who claims that the nuclear materials were being used not for peaceful purposes but for war. If the Minister can produce the evidence in court, there should be no problem, and such claims can be demonstrated to be palpably false. The question does not arise if that is the basis of our nuclear power programme and if there are no links between the peaceful nuclear power programme and defence.
However, I am suspicious because the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may furnish a certificate, which is not open to challenge. I am not in favour of Secretaries of State being in that position. They should be open to challenge because it is dangerous to hand over such absolute power to a Secretary of State. Such Ministers are appointed by a Government, and the Government are accountable to the House. Yet this clause states that whatever the Secretary of State says is conclusive and not open to challenge in the courts. I have strong reservations about the matter. If what the Minister says is accurate—I am sure that he made the claim fully believing it to be correct—I still have reservations about links between the civil nuclear power programme and defence. Such legislation does not dismiss those suspicions and reservations.
If there is no link between defence and civil nuclear power, the Secretary of State can, if challenged, prove it beyond peradventure in the courts. He or his representative should be able to go to court and say that the challenge is false because the materials are used for peaceful purposes. The clause is unnecessary, and I am sorry that I was not on the Committee, because, as I have said, I would have discussed this matter in a little more detail. Although the Bill is largely agreed, I wish my remarks to be on the record. Everyone recognises that criminal sanctions are necessary when dealing with criminal activities in respect of nuclear material. The problem arises on the margins of

the Bill in the application of the powers by the Secretary of State. This clause takes his power a little too far, albeit in what one might call a good cause.
I did not wish the Bill to go through the House without a query being raised again, so that if a problem arises in future it cannot be said that the legislation was not questioned or that it was passed with a total consensus. When we have a total consensus our minds are lulled into acceptance and we should beware. However, having put that warning and reservation on the record, may I say that I shall not divide the House—some hon. Members may have been anxious about that—because most of the Bill is agreed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the legislation should not pass without comment. As I said on Second Reading, I am a strident advocate of civil nuclear power, and I again express my gratitude to the Atomic Energy Commission for the care that it has taken over many years, which has meant that, with the arguable exception of Mr. Throughton, no accident has in any way been traceable to the nuclear side. Incidentally there have been accidents on the civil engineering side, but that is a different matter. Of course, no one can be complacent, and I am sure that no one is. That should be said.
I do not want to stray from the margins of order, because there could be controversy over clause 2. However, I want to put one fact on record. Some of us continue to be extremely worried because of breaches of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the non-nuclear treaty in the Western hemisphere. This may not be the time to do it, but sooner or later there should be an inquiry into the alleged infringement of protocol 1, which was signed by the Labour Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), endorsed by the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), endorsed again by the 1974–79 Labour Government, and endorsed—I thought—by this Conservative Government, who nevertheless allowed nuclear weapons to go from both Gibraltar and Portsmouth, although some weapons were taken off, to the South Atlantic.
I shall not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in my opinion there should be an inquiry into the circumstances in which nuclear weapons—if Lieutenant David Tinker is to be believed, and I am sure that he is—went south two days before the Prime Minister said that the crisis had come out of the blue. As I said, I do not wish to test the Chair's patience tonight, because the matter is very much on the fringes of the Bill. All I am saying, and I shall sit down on this thought, is that there really should be an inquiry.

Mr. Cryer: I intervene before my hon. Friend sits down, because what he is saying is relevant to my remarks. Will he accept that the power in clause 6 could be used if people wanted, for example, to hush up the use of this type of nuclear material in the situation that he is describing? If, for example, anyone was charged over the disposition of nuclear material in the Falklands the Secretary of State, with these powers, could declare those materials to be for peaceful purposes. There is no challenge to the Secretary of State if he says that in court, no matter how ludicrous or bizarre the circumstances in which the nuclear material is being dealt with.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall have to reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend says. His point is made by the fact that the Stena Inspector and the Stena Seaspread—as far as one knows, because one is told that it is not in the public interest to comment—are looking for nuclear materials in the tombs of poor Coventry and Sheffield. As long as this continues, there are matters in the South Atlantic of grave concern—or they should be of grave concern—because of the emission of radio nucleids and the way in which this material can build up dangers from the hill into the food stream and the whole ecology.
I see that you are getting impatient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that I should like a letter to be written to my hon. Friend and myself.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is interesting.

Mr. Dalyell: It is an interesting and substantial point.
I shall sit down on condition that the Minister promises that the relevant Departments—the Home Office, the Department of Energy, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will give a long and serious explanation—there may be such—of the legal position concerning the Treaty of Tlatelolco and the whole question of nuclear weapons going south some 48 hours before the Prime Minister said that the crisis had come out of the blue to her. The House will recall that on 26 October the Prime Minister told us, in answer to question No. 1, that the crisis had come out of the blue on 31 March. It is now common knowledge that nuclear weapons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I am becoming impatient. He is now going outside the scope of the Bill. Only that which is in the Bill can be discussed on Third Reading.

Mr. Dalyell: As the debate is being conducted in such a good natured way, I shall sit down, with the request that there be a letter touching on and hopefully explaining those events.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Although Labour Members welcome the Bill as a necessary piece of legislation to implement the United Nations convention, some important points have been made during its passage which I hope the Minister will take into careful consideration.
One new point which has occurred to me about clause 1 relates to offences committed outside the United Kingdom which could endanger life by reckless conduct in relation to nuclear material for peaceful purposes. It is ironical that we are going to all this trouble to introduce the Bill creating the new offences a few days after we read a report that the Government—perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny this—are defying a decision by representatives of 30 countries who met in London last week to suspend the dumping of nuclear material in the Atlantic 600 miles off Cornwall, which is apparently being done at the moment by Britain, Belgium and Switzerland. Those representatives voted by 19 to 6 to suspend that dumping of radioactive waste at sea while scientists assess the environmental impact of such action. Yet I understand that we are going to continue to do that for at least two years while the study is being carried out. If we are to continue that, will the Minister say why we are defying the

decision reached by representatives of 30 countries and will Belgium and Switzerland also continue the practice? That is relevant to the Bill and deserves as much consideration as the other points that we have discussed during its passage.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I am grateful for a chance to make a brief comment. I represent Abingdon, Harwell is situated in my constituency and I have close relations with Harwell and Culham.
I wish to draw attention to a letter which appeared in The Times yesterday from the director of Harwell, Dr. L. E. J Roberts in order to put the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) into perspective. Dr. Roberts said:
Last year the UK disposed of 2,700 tonnes of packaged waste, of which 90 per cent. was concrete packing. The present regulations, which were drawn up on the advice of an international committee of marine scientists, are based on very conservative assumptions and an annual disposal of 100,000 tonnes of packaged waste for 40,000 years. The scale of dumping could be increased by a large factor before any significant addition was made to the natural radioactivity of the sea'
I wish to draw attention to that to put into perspective what many people understandably think is a highly emotive subject.

Dr. Summerskill: rose—

Mr. Benyon: May I finish my point before I give way?
Many people are anxious about the emotive practice of nuclear waste dumping. I am anxious to stress that the committee of international scientists spent a great deal of time looking at the subject. Anyone who visits my constituency and Harwell and meets Dr. Roberts and his staff will be reassured that they are not in the least complacent about the matter. They give the matter an enormous amount of time and study to ensure that all they do is done in the interests not only of this generation but of future generations.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that this study, which is going to take about two years to complete, is unnecessary? Is he completely certain that this material can be put into the sea without any possible harm? If not, then surely it is worthwhile to carry out the study. Until we are absolutely certain, we should not incur any more risks while the study is being carried out.

Mr. Benyon: I am sure it is right for the studies to continue. Not being a scientist of even local, never mind international, stature, I have to rely on the advice that I am given by people such as Dr. Roberts. I have every confidence in the amount of time and the reliance that lie and those who have made this careful study place on this matter. I am happy to rely on his views.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for raising the point he did, because it gives me an opportunity to emphasise something which is often overlooked.
Hon. Members are concerned with the case of somebody committing a crime abroad and fleeing to this country. We are concerned with the question of what happens if a person flees from one country where he has committed a crime to another and that country is reluctant to extradite because the domestic laws of that country prevent it from extraditing its own nationals.
There is no difficulty as to the commission of a crime in England concerning either nuclear material for warlike purposes or nuclear material for peaceful purposes.
Hon. Members are concerned in the Bill with giving power to the English courts to try crimes which are committed abroad. One need only think for a short time to realise the difficulties which will be faced. The English courts are given the jurisdiction by the Bill to recognise these new crimes committed abroad, but how is proof to be presented to the English courts to the effect that the nuclear material in issue is nuclear material for peaceful purposes? Unless the courts in this country are so satisfied, they will not be able to convict on the new offences created by the Bill.
The fears voiced by the hon. Gentleman, and I can well understand why he voiced them, are unreal. There is no scope in the Bill whereby a Secretary of State in this country could cover up his tracks by issuing a certificate so as to pretend that certain nuclear materials which had been stolen were nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes when they were used for warlike purposes. A Secretary of State would never wish to get himself into that position even if he were a dishonest Secretary of State. He could prosecute the person under the ordinary law of the land for theft. We are concerned with proof for the English courts to convict somebody of an offence committed abroad.
I must tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it is not for me to comment on whether the United Kingdom has complied with the treaty of Tlatelolco. However, when he spoke about such matters on Second Reading, I undertook to write to my right hon. Friends and I took steps to ensure that they were informed of the points that he made. The Government have at all times complied, and continue to comply with their obligations concerning the introduction of nuclear weapons into the territory or territorial waters for which they are internationally responsible within the treaty's zone of application.

Mr. Dalyell: This issue is not simply a matter of history, because—if the press is to be believed—concern about nuclear weapons in the south Atlantic was raised with the Foreign Secretary, when he was accompanying the Queen in Mexico. It has certainly been the subject of a statement by the presidents of Panama and Venezuela. Therefore, the question is not hypothetical but real, and the Government will have to respond to it.

Mr. Waddington: I cannot blame the hon. Gentleman for taking this opportunity to raise such points. However, he knows perfectly well that they are not matters for me. I have taken all the steps that I could be reasonably expected to take to ensure that those points are transmitted to those responsible. I shall leave it at that, as otherwise I shall be as out of order, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman has been.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) referred to clause 1(i)(a) and to the words
endangering the life of the lieges".
I promise the hon. Lady that, as long as she lives south of the border, she has nothing to fear from those words. That is a reference to some obscure Scottish offence, for which I do not feel in any way responsible.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the words "by reckless conduct"? It could be said that dumping radio-active material into the sea is reckless conduct committed outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Waddington: Clause 1 sets out a list of criminal offences under the law of England and Wales or that of Scotland and says that if those same offences are committed in relation to or by means of nuclear material, they shall also be offences triable in this country even if they were committed overseas. All the offences listed in subsection 1(i) (a), (b), (c) and (d) are existing offences under the laws of England or Scotland. The reference to
Endangering the life of the lieges, by reckless conduct
is a reference to some form of assault or threatened assault. I cannot now remember its nature, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is an existing offence in Scottish law. However, that does not mean that she was not perfectly entitled to use those words as a peg on which to hang an important point about the dumping of nuclear materials. I make no complaint about that. All I can tell her in that regard is that the International Maritime Organisation, meeting in London last week, noted the Spanish resolution to suspend the dumping of low level nuclear waste, but the resolution is not binding on the United Kingdom or, indeed, on any other country which dumps low level waste.
A study will certainly be considered by the IMO and by the United Kingdom. Of course, we are ever mindful of the risks attendant upon the use of nuclear energy, but we have a record of safety of which we can be proud. We go to endless efforts to cut down the risks. The fact that there have been no known deaths from the use of nuclear energy in this country is the best illustration of the pains to which we have gone to ensure that this new and valuable source of energy does not cause risks to people.
We are equally determined that this new and valuable source of energy should not cause danger to succeeding generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) was so right to put the whole thing in perspective. We must never be complacent, but there is always the temptation when something is new and frightening for people to say that the dangers are much greater than they are. One should therefore look with a certain amount of scepticism at some of the reports which appear in the newspapers. One has to contrast them with what has happened since nuclear energy was first used here for peaceful purposes.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry to learn that we do not feel obliged to conform with the resolution. The vote was 19–6. Presumably we were one of the six and not an abstention. I do not see any point in 30 countries meeting and deciding on joint action if we then defy it. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Belgium and Switzerland will defy the decision, or will they abide by it and not dump off Cornwall?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think it is right for the hon. Lady to talk about defiance. Defiance imputes a breach of a legal obligation when all we are talking about is a body of people coming together and reaching a conclusion that it would be advisable to cease the dumping of nuclear waste, whereas other equally well informed or perhaps better informed people have already come to a contrary view.
I do not think I can take the matter much further. The usefulness of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is obvious to all. Scientists have been struggling, and will continue to struggle, to make sure that the peaceful use of nuclear energy does not result in new risks to mankind. As I say, we have taken great trouble to see that no risk is caused. We will continue with that purpose in mind. The hon. Lady has to accept that what we are doing is perfectly within our rights. While we will be mindful of the resolution we will also he mindful of the abundant advice which has come from other sources.

Dr. Summerskill: Before he sits down, would the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the two questions I asked specifically? Were we one of the six countries which voted against the resolution? And will Belgium and Switzerland continue to dump off Cornwall?

Mr. Waddington: I think the answer is yes in both cases. Certainly I can say yes to the first question. I will have to check about the second.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I wish to try to put the mind of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) at rest. This is not simply because of my constituency interest. I have been privileged to go round Harwell and Culham many times and to talk to those who lead this country and, I believe, the world in nuclear expertise. I am totally satisfied that they are men of enormous responsibility. I do not say that lightly.
I feel genuinely that Dr. Roberts would like to extend an invitation to the hon. Lady and any Opposition Member who feels a degree of disquiet to go round Culham or Harwell. They could put to Dr. Roberts and his team the questions that they now direct to the Minister. I am sure that the hon. Lady, given an open mind—it is a characteristic of her—would come away feeling reassured. It is implicit in her remarks that the hon. Lady feels that Dr. Roberts and his team of scientists are flying in the face of conventional nuclear wisdom that says that dumping in the sea is dangerous and that, despite that, dumping continues irresponsibly.
This is based on a complete fallacy. It is not the case. Dr. Roberts and his team would not accept that point. I am sure that they would take great pleasure—and also provide an excellent lunch—in showing the hon. Lady the steps they are taking to act most responsibly and to explain why her obvious fears need not exist.

Mr. Waddington: The resolution is not binding. Many people do not agree with its terms. We believe that we are doing what is right in all the circumstances. In any event, it has little to do with the Bill. I believe that I would probably meet the wishes of the House if I now sat down, thanking both sides for the support that has been given for this worthwhile measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 15th June 1979 relating to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be further amended, by leaving out Mr. John Stradling Thomas and inserting Mr. Anthony Berry.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Forestry Commission

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to what I expect will prove an increasing problem in many rural areas. Major industrial closures on the scale of the Consett iron works or the Shildon railway wagon works make rural jobs losses in forestry seem a small problem, but the reality is different. Job losses in forestry tend to occur in very small communities. The impact of the loss of even five jobs is as great in relative terms as the loss of 1,000 jobs in a large town.
Many of the villages concerned are like company towns. They were built in remote areas by the Forestry Commission to house their own employees. There is virtually nothing else to do. Harwood in my constituency and other Northumberland forestry villages like Byrness, Stonehaugh and Kielder, come into the same category. There are other small villages which, although not built by the Forestry Commission, are heavily dependent upon it for employment. This is the case in many parts of England, Scotland and Wales.
The irony is that large-scale forestry was brought to places such as the Cheviot hills, the Cumberland fells and the Borders on the basis that it would bring jobs Fanning had to make way for trees. Shepherds had to make way for forestry workers. This caused resentment at the time, some of which lingers on. One of the arguments used when forestry first marched across the hillsides was that it would bring a level of employment to the rural areas that sheep farming could not provide.
The reality has been different. In recent years there has been a decline in jobs in forestry. In Northumberland, the Forestry Commission's staff has fallen by 30 per cent., from 340 to 234, in the last 10 years. Although private contractors have taken over some of the work done previously by the commission's staff on Forestry Commission estates, barely half the number of jobs have been created by private contractors as have been lost. One of the problems is that forestry contractors are often not situated in areas where the jobs are lost. They may be much nearer towns, and not in the small forestry villages where there is little alternative employment.
That brings me to one of the two ways in which the Government's policies seem likely seriously to increase job losses. I refer to the sale of forests, upon which the Government are keen and which form part of their general privatisation programme. The sales result form the Forestry Act 1981, and I believe that they are the subject of a fair amount of pressure on the Forestry Commission by Ministers. I believe that the Forestry Commission has been told, not just in the statute, but behind the scenes, that it must get on and sell forests as quickly as possible so that the Government can demonstrate that they are actively carrying out their privatisation policy with forests, just as they are in other areas of industry, as diverse as heavy industry and British Transport Hotels Ltd. The consequences in forest areas can be serious. Work 'which would have been done by Forestry Commission workers will now be done by contractors probably from elsewhere.
In my constituency 5,600 acres are currently for sale, mainly at Uswayford and Harwood, and 2,000 acres of


that land has been newly planted. When it comes to fruition it could provide work for 25 men, all of them living in remote villages. The remainder of the area which is for sale, particularly that of Uswayford, is still very young. Much of it was planted between 1974 and 1982. Men employed on maintenance will no longer be required if it is handed over to private ownership and contractors. A similar thing is happening in north Tyne and Redesdale, where a substantial number of forest villages lost many jobs during the earlier period that I described. They are likely to be hit further by sales.
There are a number of questions that I wish to put to the Minister about these sales. Why are such large plots of land in the northern forests being offered for sale? There is a suspicion—I put it no higher—that the Government are meeting considerable resistance to forest sales in some other parts of the country, particularly the south of England. There was plenty of evidence that that would be the case when we debated the Forestry Bill 1981. Many Conservative Members voiced anxieties about the sale of Forestry Commission land in various parts of the south of England.
There is a suspicion that pressure to sell land in the northern forests is that much greater because of the resistance that the Government know they will meet in a number of other areas. The pressure on our forestry villages, which are much more remote than comparable places in the south of England, will be greater. I should like the Minister to reassure me that there will be no unreasonable pressure for sales in the northern forests within the framework of the Government's policy.
What about the recreational potential of the forests, which the Forestry Commission has been developing, and which is creating some new jobs? It is providing work for people in the forestry villages. I do not believe that, for understandable reasons, it is likely that that potential will be similarly developed when the land is in private ownership. Private enterprise will not have that commitment in the forests and jobs will not, therefore, be created.
Above all, I wish to ask the Minister what happened to the criteria set out when we debated the Forestry Bill 1981. The Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking on Second Reading on 26 January 1981, said:
the Forestry Commission will of course make every effort to minimise the effect of sales on jobs in the forest, particularly in those areas where it is the major employer." — [Official Report, 26 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 652.]
When replying to the debate the Minister's predecessor confirmed that one of the criteria to be considered in forest sales was the maintenance of employment and the viability of local communities, especially in the socially fragile areas.
"Socially fragile areas" is a somewhat intimidating phrase, but it well describes many of the small upland villages of Northumberland. Already, there is virtually no employment and rural services are rapidly contracting due to depopulation, so those areas are socially very fragile indeed and it is a hard struggle to maintain a pattern of life so that people can stay and work there at all. In other words, they are precisely the type of area that the Minister had in mind when he replied to that debate, and they are already feeling the impact of the sales policy.
I therefore ask the Government to reconsider their whole sales policy and the application of those criteria, which seem to have been forgotten.
Another aspect of Government policy likely to threaten jobs in the rural areas is the management review that the Forestry Commission is undertaking—again, at the behest of and under some pressure from the Government. As in so many management reviews, it is the lowest tier that seems likely to be removed or to be most drastically affected. So far as I can gather from my own area, the tier that will disappear will be not the district offices but the local offices within the forests. That means that local forest offices in places such as Harwood, Thrunton and Harbottle, where the Kidland forest office is, will be closed. Similar small offices in Redesdale and north Tyne seem likely to be affected in the same way. Jobs for foresters, clerks and cleaners will therefore disappear. District offices will be kept in places such as Rothbury and Bellingham, but in the tiny remote forestry villages jobs will be lost.
The impact of all these measures on rural employment must be considered against the background of other rural job losses. Job losses due to mechanisation in agriculture have been very heavy in Northumberland over the years. More recently, due to the depressed state of the country, there have been job losses in quarrying and brick works, which are staple providers of employment in rural areas. In addition, there has been a serious decline in rural services, which cannot be sustained by the much reduced population in many of the villages.
The Minister and her Department must take a close interest in the countryside. Is she prepared to see our countryside become a depopulated museum? That is the danger inherent in these trends—not only in forestry but through the combined effect of a number of trends. I would expect a Department responsible for agriculture, forestry and fisheries to be a powerful advocate to maintain the pattern of life in our rural areas. I therefore expect it to do a great deal more than it seems to be doing to moderate the thrust of Government doctrine and policy in a matter such as forestry sales so as to ensure that drastic job losses in very small communities will not further undermine the ability of our countryside to remain a living part of our nation in years to come.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the question of Forestry Commission policy and jobs in the countryside.
First, the hon. Gentleman sought an assurance that there was no undue pressure for sales in northern England. All the commission's conservancies have been asked to select areas for disposal. The sales are being evenly spread and there is no bias against northern England in favour, say, of the south of England. Indeed, the commission's experience is that woodlands in the south of England at present provide a more ready market—contrary to the hon. Member's suggestion and, I hope, of some reassurance to him. As I shall describe in more detail later, in addition to direct employment the commission has provided a substantial amount of employment for small rural businesses.
The Government's support for forestry was made clear in our policy statement in December 1980, as follows:


the Government believe that long-term confidence in both forestry and wood-processing industries in this country is fully justified. We look for a steadily increasing proportion of our requirements of timber to come from our own resources. A continuing expansion of forestry is in the national interest, both to reduce our dependence on imported wood in the long term and to provide continued employment in forestry and associated industries."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 927.]
We are therefore well seized of the importance of forestry in terms of employment. In our policy statement, we stressed the increased contribution to be made by the private sector in future forestry expansion. We nevertheless decided that the commission should continue to have a programme of new planting, and we laid emphasis on the fact that some of that should take place in the socially fragile areas—the hon. Gentleman picked up that phrase—where even the maintenance of a few jobs is importance.
The importance we continue to attach to the commission's role in providing employment in the countryside, especially in the remoter rural areas suffering from depopulation, is one that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would endorse. But in fulfilling that role, the commission—both as a commercial enterprise and as a public body which is still at the investment stage and necessarily dependent on Exchequer funds for part of its revenues—must balance the need to operate efficiently and cost-effectively. That is behind the review that the commission has carried out into its management structures, a matter which the hon. Gentleman raised tonight. It would help the House if I were to put that review into its proper perspective.
The 20 years following the second world war saw a rapid expansion of the commission's estate. During that period there was a large programme of land acquisition, new forests were created, the labour force grew and, at the operational level, the structure of forests and districts became firmly established. But during the sixties there were dramatic changes both in society in general and within the commission. In England and Wales the acquisition of land slowed down and during the decade from the mid-sixties many forests moved out of the labour-intensive stage of planting and establishment on to a care and maintenance basis prior to the harvesting stage. The investment in research and development and in work study began to pay dividends and, increasingly, the mechanisation of forestry operations and the introduction of new techniques, such as chemical weeding, resulted in substantial increases in productivity and a drop in the forest labour force. That, in turn, led to reductions in the numbers of foresters required for supervision.
Major changes outside the commission contributed to changes in the commission's structure. The improvement of road communications made it possible for foresters, who were responsible for individual forests, and district officers, who were responsible for groups of forests, to manage larger areas. The changeover from coal-fired to diesel trains largely removed the threat of forest fires which had, until that time, tied down many supervisors to living locally in the forests.
All those factors made it practicable to increase the size of management units, and the continuing decline in the direct labour force, with its concurrent reduction in the need for supervisors, provided the impetus for change. In the mid-sixties a process of forest and district amalgamations began and has continued steadily since that

time. The number of manual workers has declined from about 11,000 in 1964 to just over 5,000 at present, a drop of over 50 per cent. During the same period, non-industrial staff declined by 22 per cent. In 1964, there were 118 districts and 447 forests compared with the present 56 districts and 211 forests, a reduction of some 50 per cent. It was also in the mid-sixties that a review of the commission's management structure resulted in the removal of the English, Scottish and Welsh directorate offices, which formed a level of management interposed between the headquarters and conservancy offices.
Despite those changes, the commission continued with a two-tier management structure below the conservancy, that is, the regional level. This was mainly because it considered that there were distinct jobs to be done at forest level by the technically trained forester grades and at district level by the professionally qualified forest officer grades. The commission has now reached the stage, however, when it acknowledges that the distinction between the forest and district tiers of management has become increasingly blurred and that it would be sensible to consider a single level of management under the conservancy. It is against this background and the pattern of continuing change in the industry in the past 20 years—a period which has seen a revolution in forestry techniques and machinery comparable with that in agriculture in the previous decade—that the present review of the commission's management structure has taken place.
The Forestry Commissioners rightly see the review in the context of their responsibility to improve management efficiency and to reduce overhead costs to match workloads and manpower resources over their scattered estate. They set up an internal working group which reported in the spring of 1982. After a period of consultation with staff representatives, the commissioners decided last December that the way to proceed was to have one level of management below regional level by setting up some 70 forest districts in place of the present 211 forests and 56 districts; to consult with the trade unions with a view to a start being made on the introduction of the new forest district structure on 1 April 1983; and to merge the forester and forest officer grades. They also decided to set up a new working group to review the functions, organisation and staffing requirements at headquarters and conservancy levels, which will report at the end of September.
The new forest districts will offer distinct management advantages through a greater flexibility in the deployment and delegation of work. They will put greater emphasis on functional responsibilities and team work; improve communications between the commission's regional and local offices; and streamline office work at the operational level, which takes advantage of the opportunities afforded by the introduction of computer terminals at operational level. Last, but not least, they will provide a more realistic size of management unit for organising the rapid expansion of timber production that is expected in the next decade and for efficiently deploying the sophisticated harvesting machinery which is now being introduced.
Consultations with the trade unions about the new forest district structure are now in progress. Until they have been completed, it is not possible to say what its final shape will be. What is clear is that it will result in significant staff savings at the operational level. This should not, however, be regarded as a crude staff-cutting exercise. The


commission's first aim has been to see that it has a management structure that is as efficient as it can make it and is fully compatible with the significant changes that have evolved in forestry operations in the past two decades.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Lady now recognise at this stage of the process that the staff reductions that she has described will involve compulsory redundancies?

Mrs. Fenner: No. The point that I am trying to make and had hoped to develop in the brief time that is available to us is that this is still a matter of discussion with the trade unions. It would be wholly pessimistic of the hon. Gentleman to arrive at that conclusion.
The commission, in its forestry enterprise capacity, is a business. Like any business, it needs to be competitive, and to be competitive it must be efficient. Having undergone a dramatic process of mechanisation which has resulted in impressive increases in productivity, the commission would be failing in its duty if it were to cling to an outmoded management structure. It also has special responsibilities in its role as a forestry authority.
The hon. Gentleman was worried about employment at the last tier. The new management structure will be felt at the supervisory level. However, the commission will not, and could not, place all of its local managers into the New Forest district offices. It will still have people outstationed at forests and villages where there is a clear need for a local presence, and the effects will not, I believe, be as great as the hon. Gentleman fears. I stress that it is not the intention of the commission to diminish the level of contact and co-operation between the private woodland owner and the local commission officers which presently exist.
The commission's aim is the most effective structure to manage its own forests and to support private forestry. Commission staff will therefore continue to be available to give help and guidance.
For the reasons that I have mentioned, the number of people employed by the commission has dropped significantly over the past 20 years. If we are to take a balanced view, I suggest that we must take account of not only the numbers employed by the commission but those employed in the private sector. In addition to its own employees, the commission provides an increasing amount of employment to private contractors and small rural businesses. It has, for example, been the policy of the commission to make some of its timber available standing to give an opportunity to local harvesting firms.
It is also the Government's wish that the expansion of forestry should increasingly be undertaken by the private side of the industry, with the assistance and support of the commission, and the significant contribution that private forestry makes to rural employment should not be overlooked. We have been encouraged by the figures for new planting by private owners, which have increased significantly since our December 1980 policy statement and the new package of grant-aid announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in July 1981. The area of private afforestation grant-aided by the Forestry Commission in the year ended 31 March 1982 was about 50 per cent. higher than in the previous year. The response to the Forestry Commission's new grant scheme, which started in October 1981, has also exceeded

our expectations. In its first year of operation nearly 1,800 applications were received covering about 70,000 hectares.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern about disposals. The sale by the commission of land and plantations is seen by some as posing a major threat to jobs. It was made clear both here and in another place during the debates on the Forestry Bill 1981, which gave powers to put the disposals policy into effect, that this was a limited programme. I tried to reassure hon. Members on many occasions that there is no intention of jeopardising the commission's commercial viability, and certainly the disposals are not being undertaken in order to dismember the commission. The present programme up to and including 1985–86 amounts only to some 8 per cent. of the commission's total assets. Plantations are sold as going concerns to private investors who will wish to look after their investment, and although some redundancies in the commission are likely to prove unavoidable these will be kept to a minimum. It is likely that some at least of the workers affected will be offered employment by the private purchasers.
It must also be remembered that the commissioners, in deciding which woodland to put on the market, have been given a set of guidelines drawn up by forestry Ministers. Included in these guidelines—a copy of which is in the Library of the House—is one which requires the commission to take into account the maintenance of employment and the viability of local communities especially in the "socially fragile areas". That is not the only consideration. Other factors must be taken into account, but the question of jobs is given due weight.
As I have explained, in speaking of the change in the management structure, the Forestry Commission has always sought maximum efficiency. At the same time, it has had a special care for the well-being of those who work in the industry. We do not have to look far to see an example. Despite the difficulties of the past few years, the number of people actually made redundant by the Commission has been surprisingly small. I say "surprisingly", because the effects of the recession have been quite marked on the forestry industry. The commission, faced with a buyer's market, could easily have sat back and discarded workers to await the better times which lie ahead. But it did not. When the roundwood market in this country collapsed in the wake of the pulp mill closures at Fort William, Ellesmere Port and Bristol, the commission—along with the private sector—set out to find an alternative market. This it did, in Scandinavia. If ever there was a case of taking coals to Newcastle, this was it.
Although that market is not as strong as it was a couple of years ago, nevertheless it has provided an important breathing space. It has helped to mitigate the effects which the pulp mill closures might otherwise have had. It has also helped to retain the infrastructure of harvesting and haulage of timber towards the time when we can process it once more in this country. In brief, it saved jobs—not in the towns but in the very heart of the forestry industry, in the rural areas. And it is these people, the forest workers, who will have a major part to play when the forestry industry in this contry begins to expand. That day cannot now be far off. The Commission's actions in seeking export markets, singles it out—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—as a caring employer. It is this


same care which will ensure that the restructuring process will be done with as much sympathy and understanding as is possible for the needs of its employees.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.